Maciamo
In the Serb and Croat genes thread below this one you told me that bosnians are actually much closer to croats than they are to Serbs and that there is no difference between the three ethnic groups in bosnia I would like to state otherwise according to some things. First your haplogroups for Bosnia, Croatia, and Serbia

Bosnia

2.5
50
0.5
13.5
4
2
6
1
14.5
2.5
0
0

Croatia

8
42
1
29
8
1
3.5
0
6
1.5
0
0

Serbia

2
29
4
15
7
1
10
1
24
7
0
0

Now if we add up the lowest haplgorup percentage for each country i assume we get % similarity or who similar or not they are.

Croats to bosnians similarity 74.5%

Serbs to Bosnians similarity 74%

Dont understand how bosnians are much more similar to croats as you had stated before. Difference in similarity between Serbs and bosnians and bosnians and croats is only 0.5% i dont consider that much.

Now the second thing in regards to all three ethnicites being the same. your source says otherwise.as you see considerable difference between I and E values amoung bosnia's three ethnic groups. bosnian Serbs are significantly closer to Serbs than the bosnian average is so to speak. Bosnians Serbs are closer to Serbs than they are to either bosniaks or bosnian croats.

Maciamo

17-02-10, 12:32

That's not how you should count. Try grouping the haplogroups by origin.

Paleolithic European haplogroups (I1, I2a, I2b) :

Croatia = 51%
Bosnia = 53%
Serbia = 35%

Near-Eastern haplogroups (E, J, T) :

Croatia = 11%
Bosnia = 24%
Serbia = 42%

Indo-European/Caucasian haplogroups (G2a, R1a, R1b)

Croatia = 38%
Bosnia = 19.5%
Serbia = 23%

The dominant category is Paleolithic for both Croatia and Bosnia, but Near-East for Serbia. Croatia has more Indo-European lineages than Bosnia though.

Note that the data you copied if for Bosnia-Herzegovina, not for ethnic Bosniaks only. It also includes ethnic Serbs and Croats living in Bosnia-Herzegovina.

cordobesforever

19-02-10, 01:48

Good job!

Maciamo, you know by chance which was the genetic makeup (in haplogroups) of pre-Roman Italy?

maltesekid

08-03-10, 07:38

serbia is more near eastern of the 3 but not as much as albania and greeks obviously

Joro

08-03-10, 16:41

well, Serbia falls much more with Albania and Greece speaking of Near Eastern Lineages.
Croatia has Near Eastern genes as much as Netherlands,and Bosnia(without Bosnian Serbs) could almost fall in that group as well,although they show more tendencies towards 'classic Balkan DNA' than Croatia.

Cambrius (The Red)

08-03-10, 17:58

Croatia is much more Paleolithic than its neighbors.

Joro

08-03-10, 18:38

Except Bosnia-Herzegovina,of course.

Sprinkles

08-03-10, 18:43

Maciamo, please refrain from using nomenclature that does not properly address the distinct divergence of genotypes found in Herceg-Bosna. The Croatian lineage is highly correlated with lower portions of Dalmatia - of which, both show divergence from northern Croatia. Reproductive isolation from geographic boundaries should not be dismissed when trying to understand genetics. Rather, you are purporting a flawed methodology of boundary analysis. Croatians in Herceg-Bosna are Croatian. The analysis of the country that disregards addressing the differences within sub-populations has no value in attempting to understand those populations. This type of analysis is scientifically imprudent and not worth-becoming of someone who wishes to be taken seriously when discussion genetic differences.

Croatia is much more Paleolithic than its neighbors.
Coon actually noted UP strain in Montenegro,as can be seen on his map:http://carnby.altervista.org/immagini/troemap9.jpg

however,he didn't pay much attention on Herzegovina,which is at least UP as Montenegro,and Bosnia and Dalmatia,where UP is also very strong,maybe not as exactly much the first two,but more than enough to register it.But we can't blame him,since he needed to fill his map,and therefore he rather used his imagination than scientific studies,in his characteristical fashion:rolleyes2:

Cambrius (The Red)

08-03-10, 20:12

Coon actually noted UP strain in Montenegro,as can be seen on his map:http://carnby.altervista.org/immagini/troemap9.jpg

however,he didn't pay much attention on Herzegovina,which is at least UP as Montenegro,and Bosnia and Dalmatia,where UP is also very strong,maybe not as exactly much the first two,but more than enough to register it.But we can't blame him,since he needed to fill his map,and therefore he rather used his imagination than scientific studies,in his characteristical fashion:rolleyes2:

Too right, Joro...:good_job:

rogers

12-03-10, 14:02

Yes I agree that Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina have a strong UP presence. Also they have a distinct Borreby admix that is very unusually placed as the only other regions where such a phenotype predominates is in North Germany, Denmark, Iceland and Norway.

Iadera56

19-03-10, 15:50

Yes I agree that Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina have a strong UP presence. Also they have a distinct Borreby admix that is very unusually placed as the only other regions where such a phenotype predominates is in North Germany, Denmark, Iceland and Norway.
I am a CM too :good_job:

Joro

19-03-10, 16:06

I am a CM too :good_job:
we all have some:satisfied:

bosna501

27-03-10, 17:01

Bosnians are Illyrians they have 50% of I2a (Illyrian)
and the Name Bosnia is real ancient Illyrian Name BOSONA.

The Propaganda of our Neighbourgs is Fall,
we are not Serbs and not Croats we are Bosnians
and the Bosnian christians are Bosnians too but they
are victims of the centauryold Propaganda of our Neighbourgs
and the DNA Tests have shown that all Bosnians are very Similar
and more similar than with croatia or Serbia.

The Truth will EVER Win

bosna501

27-03-10, 17:06

in 1991 john wilks﻿﻿ (Wilkes is the foremost LIVING﻿ authority﻿﻿ on the Illyrians)﻿ said that bosnians are﻿ of illyrian decend. ten years after ALBANIAN accademics﻿ agreed with﻿ him: Kaplan Resuli, Fatos Lubonja, Ardian Qosi and Ardian Vebiu also other experts worlwide like: Paul, Hirt, Weigand, Tomashek, Georgiev, Pushcariu and﻿﻿ many others. And then we got the genetic﻿ facts from﻿﻿ Igenea, genograpic and familytreedna.

Joro

27-03-10, 17:52

Maciamo, could you please somehow take care of these spamming posts?

bosna501

28-03-10, 01:31

Spaming Posts???

I think you are a Spamer with your more than Funny comments.

LeBrok

28-03-10, 02:44

lol, yeh, Joro is a guardian of purity and uniqueness of Croatia. You're messing up his point of view. :)

Joro

28-03-10, 04:29

Spaming Posts???

I think you are a Spamer with your more than Funny comments.
please, do us a favor and stop vandalizing this noble forum.
It's not my fault you Muslims are so lost and frustrated.

bosna501

30-03-10, 00:44

Muslims oh man have you a Islamophobia???

This is a Genticly and not a Religious Forum.

Hey Joro you are a Joke with really big Complexes
accept the reality its better, your Propagandamachine is a Ruin.

bosna501

30-03-10, 00:54

Croat or Hrvat is a Persian/Iranic Word or Tribe thats never be a nativ
balkanic People your Homeland is not Balkan and you have no more rights than Bosnians on this Region. Bosnians are the real nativ Balkan People and your
Propaganda tried to hide it for centuries.

bosna501

30-03-10, 00:56

"Serb" in the language Bizantinaca is the word that means﻿ "slaves", and that language is usually word "serbula"﻿ means the shoes of slaves, and the word "tzerboulianous" means those who wear cheap,shoes of the poor﻿ . The Serbs were given the name because they have become slaves of the emperor Bizantinaca.

The Bosnian﻿ Simbol the Golden Lily
is a ancient﻿ bosnian Simbol
they are archeological founds in bosnia older than 2000 Years with lily simbols.
The bosnian Lily are exist only in Bosnia
is calles international.
LILIUM BOSNIACUM and not Lilium Croaticum or Lilium Serbiacum.

Dezitijati, Liburni, Autarijati, Mezeji, Ardani, Labodi, Daorsi, this is only some off Iliryans tribes that lived in Bosnia...﻿

bosna501

30-03-10, 11:40

And dont forget the Bosnian Pyramid in the pure Heart of Bosnia
the Region of Visoko where find the Pyramids are the nativ beginning of Bosnians.
This Pyramids are sre greatest and oldest in the World.

bosna501

30-03-10, 11:51

BATO was one Illyrian king

In Bosnia Bato survvived over 2500 years. 20% of Bosnian people﻿ have the surname BATO still today.

Bato the King of Deseteati one Bosnian/Illyrian tribe.

bosna501

30-03-10, 12:11

PROUD TO BE BOSNIAN FOR 25.000 YEARS.

We have proof, fact and thruth on our side.

Bosnia-Herzegovina is one country and one poeple and we will forever live.

Goodbye Serbsko-Hrvatska propaganda
1850-1995

BOSONA LIVES FOREVER

PROUD TO BE BOSNIAN FOR 25.000﻿ YEARS

The thruth is﻿ on our side.

Joro

30-03-10, 12:56

Croat or Hrvat is a Persian/Iranic Word or Tribe thats never be a nativ
balkanic People your Homeland is not Balkan and you have no more rights than Bosnians on this Region. Bosnians are the real nativ Balkan People and
That's true.Our homeland is in central Europe, unlike you and your Turkish brothers:satisfied:

Joro

30-03-10, 12:58

And dont forget the Bosnian Pyramid in the pure Heart of Bosnia
the Region of Visoko where find the Pyramids are the nativ beginning of Bosnians.
This Pyramids are sre greatest and oldest in the World.
So far they've only found dust in those 'Pyramids':laughing:

bosna501

30-03-10, 13:09

You have not only a Islamophobia you have a Turkcomplex too
why that??? Its your Forfathers from Anatolia than go search your Family
but please stop here your stupid complex comments your Homeland is Asia.

All Pyramid Experts in the World that was in Bosnia said thats Pyramids and they found many archoelogical artifacts.

Thats the niveau of you comments please stop you smiley attacks
that not hide your stupidity and lies.
Maybe you should first learn to use English without Google Translator to hide your own stupidity:laughing:

Your Wahrheit is that in 'your own' country you are stuck on 25% of the territory,while Serbs hold 50 percent and they won't give it back.
Maybe first you should deal with reality and then write your fantasy tracts.

bosna501

30-03-10, 20:00

Why you speak about War or results of War
i think that is here not theme.

Joro

30-03-10, 22:51

Well, the theme isn't about Bosnian 'Pyramids' either.

bosna501

31-03-10, 13:52

Bosnian Pyramids are History of Region of Bosnia and the ancient People Bosnians.

bosna501

31-03-10, 16:11

Here a Link and look on Side Nr. 4

you can see Bosnia and Hercegovina have 52 - 62% I1b

http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/22/10/1964.pdf

Joro

31-03-10, 19:02

Bosnian Croats have by far the most, followed by Muslims and Serbs.

bosna501

31-03-10, 19:25

Bosnian Catholics are people from Bosnia not from Croatia
and bosnian catholics are similar to bosnian muslims or orthodox
and different geneticly to Croatians in Croatia this is prooved Fact.

Bosnian Christians are only victims of centaurie long Propaganda of
our Neighbourgs thats all they are bosnians christs and not serbs or croats.
In 19th they all Bosnian People said they are Bosnian but today they are victims
but the TRUTH WILL WINS.

Joro

31-03-10, 20:09

but the TRUTH WILL WINS.
what wins?will or truth?:thinking: :D
i think rather your will, which is based on fantasies.

bosna501

31-03-10, 22:24

You are a hrvatian Smiley Warloard

Sprinkles

01-04-10, 00:25

You have not only a Islamophobia you have a Turkcomplex too
why that??? Its your Forfathers from Anatolia than go search your Family
but please stop here your stupid complex comments your Homeland is Asia.

All Pyramid Experts in the World that was in Bosnia said thats Pyramids and they found many archoelogical artifacts.
Islam is not the religion of Illyrian people.

I don't know why people come here and argue for Islam or Christianity when we know that these are not indigenous beliefs of the Illyrian people. These religious wars are slavery for the people. Not only did they cause us to fight for Europeans who show no regard or intellectual ability, but they also made us kill each other.

I do not understand why Islam has perverted Illyrian culture, but if you truly believe yourself to be Illyrian, you would not believe in Mohammed.

Otherwise, you're just accusing others while, himself, acting the part of the accused.

Sprinkles

01-04-10, 00:28

Bosnian Catholics are people from Bosnia not from Croatia
and bosnian catholics are similar to bosnian muslims or orthodox
and different geneticly to Croatians in Croatia this is prooved Fact.

Bosnian Christians are only victims of centaurie long Propaganda of
our Neighbourgs thats all they are bosnians christs and not serbs or croats.
In 19th they all Bosnian People said they are Bosnian but today they are victims
but the TRUTH WILL WINS.
This depends on what Croatians you are making the inference with. If it's Croatians north of the Dinaric Alps, then, yes. We are different. If you're comparing Croatians that are well protected by the Alps, then, no, I do not see justification for this remark.

Everyone knows Croatians north of the Alps are partisani.

bosna501

01-04-10, 12:21

Islam is not the religion of Illyrian people.

I don't know why people come here and argue for Islam or Christianity when we know that these are not indigenous beliefs of the Illyrian people. These religious wars are slavery for the people. Not only did they cause us to fight for Europeans who show no regard or intellectual ability, but they also made us kill each other.

I do not understand why Islam has perverted Illyrian culture, but if you truly believe yourself to be Illyrian, you would not believe in Mohammed.

Otherwise, you're just accusing others while, himself, acting the part of the accused.

That is absolut stupid what you are say here why you speak about
Religions and Mohammed this is soooo poor from you.

Egypts, Persians and all the other cultures today Muslims but they Blood
in they Venes is the same and when in 5000 Years we believe in nothing
than our Blood is the same RELIGION IS HERE ABSOLUT NOT IMPORTANT.

bosna501

01-04-10, 12:28

Dalmatia in Croatia this People are absolut different to northcroatians
but they similar to Bosnians dalmatia must back to Mother Bosnia thats
Dalmatias Home but that never will be and Dalmatia must Cry like a Baby
without Mother.

Sprinkles

01-04-10, 14:45

That is absolut stupid what you are say here why you speak about
Religions and Mohammed this is soooo poor from you.

Egypts, Persians and all the other cultures today Muslims but they Blood
in they Venes is the same and when in 5000 Years we believe in nothing
than our Blood is the same RELIGION IS HERE ABSOLUT NOT IMPORTANT.
I don't understand the significance of your point.

Are you defending Islam? You really need to argue more articulately. No one is going to take you seriously, because your posts have no logical hierarchy.

If your point is that religions enslave the world, therefore why do cultures absorb them only to be enslaved, then I agree with you.

bosna501

01-04-10, 15:33

Please stop speak about Religions this is not the right place for Religions.

bosna501

27-03-11, 23:59

All this greatest Anthropologist﻿ and other Academics Worldwide said that Bosniaks are a Illyrian Race and Nativ Balkanpeople: Angel, Bounak, Coon, Debetz, Ewing, Gherassimov, Hasluck, Morant, Levin, Oudaltsev, Poulianos, Tovarev,﻿ Koumaris, Wilkes, Paul, Hirt, Weigand,﻿ Tomashek, Georgiev,﻿ Pushcariu and many many others and then we got the Genetic facts from Igenea, Genograpic, Familytreedna and all the other Genetic Results.....

Elias2

28-03-11, 00:20

Bosnians are an invented identity after the collapse of Yugoslavia. When Yugoslavia was created after WW1 it was the kingdom of the sloviens, croats and serbs. Bosnians, macedonians, kosovars, montinegrins are all artificially created identities in order to divide that country. Learn about nationalism and 'imagined communities' and you will see this is the truth. What is the real difference between a bosnian to a serb or croat? religion? is that all you need to be distinctive? If I change my religion to a different one from my family does that make me a different nationality apart from them? things to think about. What is the real difference between a montinegrin and a serb? political boarders? what is the real difference from a macedonian and a bulgarian? propaganda? what is the real difference between a kosovar and an albanian? I think you see my point.

Aconform

28-03-11, 10:36

First of I don’t se why you guys are getting in to religion. We are talking about something that predates the invention of these religions. Things seem to spin down to childish remarks.

The question is who were the Illyrian tribes (do note TRIBES) as I don’t believe that they were a homogenized group. Argument for this is the size of the area that was defined as Illyrian. I believe that they were a diverse group in genes and culture.

The debates that x – Yugoslav people have is modern self identity debate that tries to create a homogenous country identity. That’s all.

For me it is interesting because I am interested in how national identity is formed. And the split up of Yugoslavia has been interesting and provided a lot of data.

The basic formula is to make others invader and ones self as the rightful hair by trying to make links to the distant past.

The simple truth is you are all right and wrong… you have all have a genetic link to the area and none of you have an exclusive right to it.

Slovenians have been good at creating a self identity that focuses on the future and not get stuck on obsessing on the past.

It is much healthier to have a vision for a great future as part of ones self identity. Rather then obsessing on a great past.

As the topic is on Bosnians and who they are, ill try and give my opinion on that.

They have a link to the Illyrian tribes of the area. With strong influence from Slavic culture and genes that came to the area 6th - 8th after this the ottoman occupation left a cultural impression - That’s how simple it is. Its over simplefied i admit but thouse are the key things.

iapodos

28-03-11, 11:00

Wise words of Mesa Selimovic, well known writer from Bosnia about so-called "Bosniaks" and their lost identity:

"We are no one's, always at a boundary, always someone’s dowry. Is it a wonder then that we are poor? For centuries now we have been seeking our true selves, yet soon we will not know who we are, we will forget that we ever wanted anything; others do us the honour of calling us under their banner for we have none, they lure us when we are needed and discard us when we have outserved the purpose they gave us. We remain the saddest little district of the world, the most miserable people of the world, losing our own persona and nor being able to take on anyone else's, torn away and not accepted, alien to all and everyone, including those with whom we are most closely related, but who will not recognise us as their kin. We live on a divide between worlds, at the border between nations, always at a fault to someone and first to be struck. Waves of history strike us as a sea cliff. Crude force has worn us out and we made a virtue out of a necessity: we grew smart out of spite.

So what are we? Fools? Miserable wretches? The most complex people in the world. No one is such a joke of history as we are. Only yesterday we were something that we now wish to forget, yet we have become nothing else. We stopped half way through, flabbergasted. There is no place we can go to any more. We are torn off, but not accepted. As a dead-end branch that streamed away from mother river has neither flow, nor confluence it can rejoin, we are too small to be a lake, too big to be sapped by the earth. With an unclear feeling of shame about our ancestry and guilt about our renegade status, we do not want to look into the past, but there is no future to look into; we therefore try to stop the time, terrified with the prospect of whatever solution might come about. Both our brethren and the newcomers despise us, and we defend ourselves with our pride and our hatred. We wanted to preserve ourselves, and that is exactly how we lost the knowledge of our identity. The greatest misery is that we grew fond of this dead end we are mired in and do not want to abandon it. But everything has a price and so does our love for what we are stuck with."

It is really hard to accept a fact that your grandfathers were christian Serbs and they converted to Islam when Turks came. It is more prospective to imagine yourselves as some imaginary Illyrians or Bogumils earlier. Your history is quite clear and could be summarized in one sentence : You are descendants of those who sold their faith for a dinner. That initial sinn is source of all of yours complexes and frustrations and hate towards Serbs, because they remind you who you were once before been.

iapetoc

29-03-11, 03:50

Bosnians are an invented identity after the collapse of Yugoslavia. When Yugoslavia was created after WW1 it was the kingdom of the sloviens, croats and serbs. Bosnians, macedonians, kosovars, montinegrins are all artificially created identities in order to divide that country. Learn about nationalism and 'imagined communities' and you will see this is the truth. What is the real difference between a bosnian to a serb or croat? religion? is that all you need to be distinctive? If I change my religion to a different one from my family does that make me a different nationality apart from them? things to think about. What is the real difference between a montinegrin and a serb? political boarders? what is the real difference from a macedonian and a bulgarian? propaganda? what is the real difference between a kosovar and an albanian? I think you see my point.

I agree, bosnians were never a nation, and were equal to Ottomans-Turks,
they create nationality after the Ottoman-Turkish expel from balkans,
they are islam converted local people, and manage to have national identiy nowdays,
in fact the almost one language (3-4 smaller dialects) huge area broke up to 3 areas mainly due to religion

Aconform

29-03-11, 11:16

I agree, bosnians were never a nation, and were equal to Ottomans-Turks,
they create nationality after the Ottoman-Turkish expel from balkans,
they are islam converted local people, and manage to have national identiy nowdays,
in fact the almost one language (3-4 smaller dialects) huge area broke up to 3 areas mainly due to religion

One thing people seem to get stuck in is borders and cultural groups. In the case of the Bosnian cultural self identity started to branch out under ottoman rule. Just because a nation did not exist does not mean that a cultural identity wasn’t there.

The concept of National identity is new in terms of human history. The common peoples self identity was smaller.

I’m rather fascinated with the development in the Balkan area. The way national self identities are forming and shifting. The fall of the Ottoman Empire, ww1, ww2, Formation of Yugoslavia and in relation to the break up Yugoslavia.

One interesting thing is that as Ottoman Empire played a key part Bosnian self identity they don’t demonize them compared to the other groups that were Vassals and or occupied by the Ottomans.

Branching out and converging of cultures happens all the time. Today we see a branching of Italy happening from the north and south and other countries like Belgium. All it takes is a group of people to convince the people that they are better and make the other group bad.

That’s what happened in Yugoslavia. Small groups of intellectuals started a new self identity that cascaded and spread.

The wars have built larger walls and added new layers of self identities to the groups.

Even on this thread, the forum in general, you se examples of reinforcement of self identity by demonizing the others.

Elias2

29-03-11, 12:59

Aconform, you know all this self-identify when compaired to the "other" is atificial right? There really isn't a difference people just make one in their mind. So when I say bosnians are muslim serbs and croats it really is that simple. There isn't anythign demonizing about that. If I were to say bosnians are cowards, theives, yada yada yada then I would be demonizing them.

Aconform

29-03-11, 15:21

Aconform, you know all this self-identify when compaired to the "other" is atificial right? There really isn't a difference people just make one in their mind. So when I say bosnians are muslim serbs and croats it really is that simple. There isn't anythign demonizing about that. If I were to say bosnians are cowards, theives, yada yada yada then I would be demonizing them.

My comment was not directed at anyone in particular. Just that the way Self and national identity works.

Ones self identity shift and is more like an onion with many layers. Global > continental > regional > religion > national > lingual > urban/rural > city > and so fourth down to the individual self and what sets him apart from the hole world.

All the identities we have surface in relation to others be that in a positive manor or negative. Normal every day people will usual find a common denominator to interact with each other in a positive manor.

Base human desire is peace and positive interaction now to override this leaders have used or should I say abused, this base human desire.

What has happened in the Balkans is a prime example of this. In reality they have more in conmen then that witch separates them… Still it was possible to create a strong self identity, problem was that it went over board and ended up demonizing that witch was not a part of that self identity. With the tragic result that was the wars in the Balkan.

Self identity is fluid I would not go so far as to call it artificial… even the people the Balkan have a common regional identity… On a thread here I saw an example of that. Were the argument was heated and one outside of the Balkan Indented made negative remarks to that. And the ones arguing fell back to common identity… saying something in the lines of: <Today we fight tomorrow we drink raki together and have fun. That’s how it is with us Balkan people>.

My argument is that our self identity is fluid and is more governed by our interaction with the outside world. And my intent is that people realize this so that they are less likely to me pushed toward negative actions.

I’m a rather surprised that in this day and age that people still are easily manipulated. All tragic event in our human history are contributed to results not the root cause. WW2 was National Socialism the root cause of Genocide? Or the creation of this identity formulation? The root conmen dominator was: we suffer because of the Jews and WW1. But could just as easy been anything ells. In Russian it was Social class. In America it was communism.

So if someone wants power he was to promise people a result to gain that power and to get the people to believe in the result. You need to form an identity using anything of the elements I mentioned at the start. And this is base formula for all good and bad thing we humans have ever done.

DejaVu

29-03-11, 16:13

Once again its proved that self identity or own rights are not valid for the Ultra Fanatics (Serbs and Greeks).
This people are continuing to be nationalistic but they dont know what they are themselfs just making a dreamworld that suits them only.
There are other people that may fit in here but Greeks and Serbs are way off with the behavior against others.

READ ALL THREADS BY THESE PEOPLE AND YOU WILL EASY SEE WHAT KIND OF NONSENSE SPAMMERS THEY ARE. Biggest provocateur is Elias2. He dont know and dont care about genetics or history, only here to spam.

Elias2

30-03-11, 00:43

haha dajavu "macedonian" is the prime example of an artificial identity. I can tell you how Bulgarian you are by using genetics and history but you just don't care.:good_job:

@aconform

You say this with the asumption that self identity is a cultural grassroot movement, meaning it starts from the bottom and moves up. What happens when it is imposed on people from the top down?

Aconform

30-03-11, 01:21

I think I tried to explain both bottom up and top down.

If we take our precious Balkan. One might imagine that a movement was started that blamed extreme nationalism rather then ethnic groups or/and religion.

But I really don’t believe in grassroots movement you need the idea or identity to be formulated.

In Scandinavia there was also many wars and animosity. Then there came a shift were on the political and intellectual front a common identity was fostered.

I think if politicians start using the national mantra again with in a few years people would start to argue about who were the real Vikings :)

What is needed is an Anti nationalistic Balkan movement. By Artist, politicians and others.

Don’t know I just wish for something new a positive wave to wash a away the hate.

Elias2

30-03-11, 01:33

What is needed is an Anti nationalistic Balkan movement. By Artist, politicians and others.

I agree with this, but look what happened with the partition of kosovo from serbia. It showcased to the entire region what happens if you try to be culturally accommodating. The same is going on within FYR Macedonia with the large albanian presence there, and the republic of serbska within bosnia. Skopians claiming neighbours lands because of their invented nationality is another example.

There is no insentive to be accommodating in that region, which isn't the fault of the politicians in the balkans but the big powers outside of it.

DejaVu

30-03-11, 17:53

I agree with this, but look what happened with the partition of kosovo from serbia. It showcased to the entire region what happens if you try to be culturally accommodating. The same is going on within FYR Macedonia with the large albanian presence there, and the republic of serbska within bosnia. Skopians claiming neighbours lands because of their invented nationality is another example.

There is no insentive to be accommodating in that region, which isn't the fault of the politicians in the balkans but the big powers outside of it.

Bosnia exist and so does the Bosnian people, accept it or not thats your own problem.

Macedonians and Macedonia exist and Greece have 51% of Macedonia that is occupied land of original Macedonia which was resettled by Turks of christian faith, but there lives alot of real Macedonians that have no right to self-determination.
Greeks are a bunch of liars and fabricators who are supported by (EU) the creators of the fake land called Greece (Biggest artificial country in Europe ever) with a non-greek population who are acctually a bunch of christian Turks mixed with Arvanites and Vlachs. Genetics prove that Greeks are Sub-saharans a non-european population. Accept this facts and tell the truth before you are talking about others.

sparkey

30-03-11, 18:56

Genetics prove that Greeks are Sub-saharans a non-european population.

I'm not going to wade into which ethnic groups are legitimate heirs to which land in Greece and the Balkans, but you're not going to get away with this kind of statement on this forum. In terms of Y-DNA, Greeks have effectively 0% recent Sub-Saharan African-origin haplogroups. They do have a lot of Y-DNA that originated from the Neolithic Expansion, including the haplogroup that is probably confusing you, E1b1b.

DejaVu

30-03-11, 19:08

I'm not going to wade into which ethnic groups are legitimate heirs to which land in Greece and the Balkans, but you're not going to get away with this kind of statement on this forum. In terms of Y-DNA, Greeks have effectively 0% recent Sub-Saharan African-origin haplogroups. They do have a lot of Y-DNA that originated from the Neolithic Expansion, including the haplogroup that is probably confusing you, E1b1b.

HAVE YOU DONE A RESEARCH? IF YOU DONT KNOW, WHY DO YOU MAKE ANY STATEMENT ABOUT IT?
HERE ARE THE REAL FACTS!

Abstract
Background: The HLA polymorphism is a powerful genetic tool to study population origins. By analysing allele frequencies and haplotypes in different populations, it is possible to identify ethnic groups and establish the genetic relationships among them. Aim: The Berber (endogenous Tunisians) HLA class I and class II genotypes were analysed and compared with those of Mediterranean and Sub-Saharan African communities using genetic distances, Neighbour-Joining dendrograms, correspondence and haplotype analysis. Subjects and methods: One hundred and five unrelated Berbers were typed for HLA class I (A, B) and class II (DRB1, DQB1) gene alleles using reverse dot-blot hybridization. Results: High frequencies of A*0201 (24.76%), A*3402 (22.38%) and B*44 (32.85%) alleles were recorded for Berbers, the highest recorded for Mediterranean and North African populations. This study shows a close relatedness of Tunisian Berbers to other Tunisians, North Africans and Iberians. Conclusion: The apparent relatedness of Tunisian Berbers to present-day (North African) Tunisians, Algerians and Moroccans suggests that the Arab invasion of North Africa (7(th)-11(th) centuries AD) did not significantly impact the genetic makeup of North Africans. Furthermore, Tunisian Berbers appear to be closely related to Iberians (Spaniards and Basques), indicating that the 7(th) century AD gene flow of invaders was low in Iberians and that the main part of their genetic pool came after the Northward Saharan migration, when hyper-arid conditions were established in Sahara (before 6000 BC). Other studied populations belong to the old Mediterranean substratum, which has been present in the area since pre-Neolithic times. This study indicates a higher proportion of Iberian than Arab ancestry in Tunisian Berbers, which is of value in evaluating the evolutionary history of present-day Tunisians. Greeks seem to share genetic HLA features (Chr 6) with Sub-Saharans. The relatedness of Greeks to Sub-Saharans has been confirmed by other studies based on chromosome 7 genetic markers.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11260506?dopt=Abstract (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11260506?dopt=Abstract).
Villena 2001 claims that Macedonians are one of the most ancient peoples existing in the Balkan peninsula, probably long before arrival of the "Mycaenian Greeks",Greeks are genetically related to sub-Saharans... Hajjeja 2005 also claims that "Our study shows that the Greeks are separate from other Mediterranean populations and tend to cluster with Sub-Saharans (Figs. 2 and 3). This result confirms the Sub-Saharan origin of Greeks". Di Giacomo 2003 reported for Y Hg A found in Mitilini-Greece. Al-Zahery 2003 also separates the Macedonians/Europeans from the Greeks.....or vice versa.
http://files.myopera.com/ancientmacedonia/blog/HLA%20genes%20in%20Southern%20Tunisians%204a.jpg

Y-Chromosome Haplotypes in the Greek–Turkish Area
http://www.springerlink.com/content/h347402u768310m3/ (http://www.springerlink.com/content/h347402u768310m3/)

Measuring European Population Stratification with Microarray Genotype Data
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1852743/ (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1852743/)

Elias2

30-03-11, 19:11

I'm not going to wade into which ethnic groups are legitimate heirs to which land in Greece and the Balkans, but you're not going to get away with this kind of statement on this forum. In terms of Y-DNA, Greeks have effectively 0% recent Sub-Saharan African-origin haplogroups. They do have a lot of Y-DNA that originated from the Neolithic Expansion, including the haplogroup that is probably confusing you, E1b1b.

That doesn't matter to him. In his mind he's decendend from the macedons and is not slavic. This whole "Turkish Christians" is funny aswell if you know what the punishment is if you switch religions from islam to another during the ottoman empire :laughing:, read the Quaran and you'll find out :good_job: Considering most of turks were christian romans who switch for several reasons during turkish occupation your arguement is very ignorant Dejavu!

Vardarska for the Vardarskans! :laughing:

Elias2

30-03-11, 19:20

Objectivity is one of the most important values that a scientific study should abide to and an academic researcher should follow. On the contrary, prejudice can often elude the design of a research study, the interpretation of the findings and may stigmatize a researcher's reputation in the scientific community. The motifs behind prejudice in science can be personal, financial or, even worse, political.
In 2001, Arnaiz-Villena and coworkers published a series of scientific articles, where, among other claims, he concluded that the Hellenic (Greek) population stems from sub-Saharan Africa. These authors have used a questionable experimental approach with too few genetic markers from the DRB1 HLA gene, to show that the Hellenic population, rather than belonging to the "older" Mediterranean populations, are genetically closer to sub-Saharan populations, namely Ethiopian and western Africans. These authors interpreted their findings by claiming that some sub-Saharan populations had migrated to Greece during antiquity, but not to Crete.

Unfortunately, the study conducted by Arnaiz-Villena and coworkers has a number of serious flaws. First of all, they based their study on very few genetic markers to reach scientifically sound conclusions on the genetic distance of human populations. Several studies, using multiple genetic markers are available in the literature, indicating that the Hellenic population is genetically closer to the rest of the European populations, while in no single study the results from the Arnaiz-Villena and coworkers study have ever been reproduced. Proper population genetics studies should employ between 20-100 autosomal genetic markers, many Y-chromosomal markers as well as markers from mitochondrial DNA.
Also, studies pertaining to the genetic heterogeneity of inherited disorders, e.g. β-thalassemia, cystic fibrosis, documented in the FINDbase worldwide database of genetic variants (http://www.findbase.org/) allele frequencies indicate that the mutational spectrum of common disorders in European populations is more closely related to each other than to sub-Saharan populations.
Furthermore, not only had Arnaiz-Villena and coworkers misused the genetic approach but also falsified historical perspectives to base their hypothesis. Their conclusions suffer from misquotations of scientific and historical citations as well as inaccurate statements without any historical and ancient documentation. The misquotation of Herodotus by these authors is notable and really unfortunate.
As a result, the Arnaiz-Villena and coworkers study was totally discredited by the scientific community to the extent that is used as a textbook definition of subjective and arbitrary interpretation of study results and it is not surprising that this study has finally retracted from the scientific literature (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4307083,00.html). From an editorial perspective, such offense is even graver than plagiarism, since it attempts to elude and to falsely create a wrong impression to the scientific community.
Overall, this example clearly shows that the scientific community critically stands against such efforts to intentionally falsify history, to abuse scientific methodology and to subjectively interpret experimental results. Such studies should be immediately retracted from the scientific literature not only to protect science from misuse but also to discourage similar attempts in the future.

George P. Patrinos
Assistant Professor of Pharmacogenomics, University of Patras,
School of Health Sciences, Department of Pharmacy, Patras, Greece;
Communicating editor, Human Mutation;

Alot of his co-workers happened to be "macedonians", lol coincidence?

Vardarska for the Vardarskans!

sparkey

30-03-11, 19:29

Good refutation by Elias2. I also can't find a single source that clusters Greeks with Sub-Saharan Africans. This website (http://dienekes.110mb.com/articles/greekadna/) has a good compilation of charts with autosomal tests (although I can't attest to that site's reliability beyond the charts it includes, which seem to check out). Greeks apparently cluster with North Africans a little better than South Slavs do, but no monumental differences that would point to the kinds of conclusions you're drawing. Again, everything I see about the Greeks points to a large Neolithic Expansion influence.

DejaVu

30-03-11, 19:34

Continue with your lies and denial it wont help you, if you look at the last test its done by "National Blood Transfusion Center, Tunis, Tunisia."
and there is no Macedonians from FYRO Macedonia but its same result again for the Greeks. Just accept what you are and be proud of it.

This study indicates a higher proportion of Iberian than Arab ancestry in Tunisian Berbers, which is of value in evaluating the evolutionary history of present-day Tunisians. Greeks seem to share genetic HLA features (Chr 6) with Sub-Saharans. The relatedness of Greeks to Sub-Saharans has been confirmed by other studies based on chromosome 7 genetic markers.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20666704

South Tunisian HLA gene profile has studied for the first time. HLA-A, -B, -DRB1 and -DQB1 allele frequencies of Ghannouch have been compared with those of neighboring populations, other Mediterraneans and Sub-Saharans. Their relatedness has been tested by genetic distances, Neighbor-Joining dendrograms and correspondence analyses. Our HLA data show that both southern from Ghannouch and northern Tunisians are of a Berber substratum in spite of the successive incursions (particularly, the 7th-8th century A.D. Arab invasion) occurred in Tunisia. It is also the case of other North Africans and Iberians. This present study confirms the relatedness of Greeks to Sub-Saharan populations. This suggests that there was an admixture between the Greeks and Sub-Saharans probably during Pharaonic period or after natural catastrophes (dryness) occurred in Sahara.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16473309

GREEKS CANT READ????? DO YOU SEE WHAT IS WRITTEN HERE???
GREEKS ARE SUB-SAHARANS. FACT!

Elias2

30-03-11, 19:41

Please tell me dejavu when did these south saharan people enter greece?

Concidering everything you write is complete lies why should I believe anything you post? You're not macedonian, your bulgarian, or south slavic if you want to be very general.

"and there is no Macedonians from FYRO Macedonia" We have progress!

DejaVu

30-03-11, 19:56

Please tell me dejavu when did these south saharan people enter greece?

Concidering everything you write is complete lies why should I believe anything you post? You're not macedonian, your bulgarian, or south slavic if you want to be very general.

Ask your mom, when they entered :) it flows in your genes.
I got links to the evidence. You are just a peasant with big words and empty statements.

Elias2

30-03-11, 20:04

Ask your mom, when they entered :) it flows in your genes.
I got links = evidence. You are just a peasant with big words and empty statements.

lol links does not mean evidence, you must not have gone far in school (unless you went to school in FYR Macedonia, then you are a scholar!) :good_job:

I found this VERY facsinating!

FYROM:
"About 50 per cent of high school students want to leave their country for good, a survey carried out by a local youth NGO reports."

With all the "macedonians" leaving, and albanians growing, in 20 years there won't be a FYROM for us to talk about :good_job:

Greeks arn't your enemy, but you insist it to be this way! oh well.

Aconform

31-03-11, 11:09

I’m HebedeDabe pure Neanderthal and I find the presence of you African homo-sapiens offensive. You have destroyed Europe it was so nice and peaceful before you came with you wars and hate… please go back to Africa you dirty homo-sapiens.

How’s that? Non of you belong here you are all African immigrants.

yolajosefiyo

07-04-11, 02:13

hey, I've been doing some research but I can't find how Bosnians look like. Sorry for my ignorance people, but I'd really like to know and I hope you can help me out. Just physical appearance in general, and it would also be good if you told me about Croatians and Serbians appearance too. thanks! :) (and sorry for my english)

Aconform

07-04-11, 09:35

hey, I've been doing some research but I can't find how Bosnians look like. Sorry for my ignorance people, but I'd really like to know and I hope you can help me out. Just physical appearance in general, and it would also be good if you told me about Croatians and Serbians appearance too. thanks! :) (and sorry for my english)

Croats and Bosnians look is blond to light brown. Serbs look about the same but they range from blond to Mediterranean look an average would be a bit darker then the 2 former..

yolajosefiyo

07-04-11, 20:33

Croats and Bosnians look is blond to light brown. Serbs look about the same but they range from blond to Mediterranean look an average would be a bit darker then the 2 former..

thank you! so originally there are no redheads? (I was wondering that, actually) I imagined there wouldn't, but I couldn't find any page with specific info about Bosnians appearance and I wanted to be sure. thanks again :)

Aconform

07-04-11, 21:41

thank you! so originally there are no redheads? (I was wondering that, actually) I imagined there wouldn't, but I couldn't find any page with specific info about Bosnians appearance and I wanted to be sure. thanks again :)

There are just not common like northern Europe. Well I have seen redhead Albanians can’t remember seeing it with the others. But I would imagine there if there are among the Albanians.

iapetoc

08-04-11, 08:40

One thing people seem to get stuck in is borders and cultural groups. In the case of the Bosnian cultural self identity started to branch out under ottoman rule. Just because a nation did not exist does not mean that a cultural identity wasn’t there.

The concept of National identity is new in terms of human history. The common peoples self identity was smaller.

I’m rather fascinated with the development in the Balkan area. The way national self identities are forming and shifting. The fall of the Ottoman Empire, ww1, ww2, Formation of Yugoslavia and in relation to the break up Yugoslavia.

One interesting thing is that as Ottoman Empire played a key part Bosnian self identity they don’t demonize them compared to the other groups that were Vassals and or occupied by the Ottomans.

Branching out and converging of cultures happens all the time. Today we see a branching of Italy happening from the north and south and other countries like Belgium. All it takes is a group of people to convince the people that they are better and make the other group bad.

That’s what happened in Yugoslavia. Small groups of intellectuals started a new self identity that cascaded and spread.

The wars have built larger walls and added new layers of self identities to the groups.

Even on this thread, the forum in general, you se examples of reinforcement of self identity by demonizing the others.

simply you are out side balkans, and you are far from Balkan History,

As an example, you your own said that Bosnian is a new tradition and culture that became a nation,

what did I say?
I said that ex one language bigger wide nation broke to 3,
is that wrong? where am I wrong?

simply at times of ottoman empire, local people change religion and converted to islam,
that slowly created a new culture,
whatwrong did I say?
nationality bosnians are south slavs, in fact for me, as also genetic proves they are same with serbs, once almost a nation, but religion divide them to 2
where the wrong in what i said so to to answer me me like that,
in balkans who have the phenomenon that politician are paid by foreigners to divide more,
As an example Fyrom, a culture?
of whom? turks? bulgarins? serbs? greeks? that became a state, and demands history and lands of other nations,
in 100 years many new nations due to religion, language, economy, or political issues,
a different culture that is new imported does not make another nation, but divides one,
as an example we call them all germans,
but Bayern, with north east Germany what common?
different culture, yet we say that are 1 nation although genetically are tottaly different,
so becarefull when you read and when you mention with word nation,
a political movement does not make a nation, as also a small culture difference,
there many nations divided either by politicians either by religion,
and slowly the are pushing that division by imput new customs and words etc,

SO PLZ DON'T PLAY THE GAME OF A POLITICIAN,
part of fyrom part of kossyfo , almsot serbia (not the north) and most of bosnia is the same Nation, simply divided by religion, politics economy, and rulers ambitions,

as most of kossyfo with north albania is almost same nation,

besides Pontic Greeks lived west of kaukasus,
cretans live in Crete,
But linguistic and genetical similarity proves that are a nation although different culture, due to Venice occupation the last and ottoman the 1rst.

a nation has not to do with politics

in fact Bosna is a true yugo-slav (south slav) country, with only difference the religion,

and since islam is new to balkan comparing christianity, we use the older terms to compare a nation,

that is why we are comparing with serbs and say they are same nation, and we don't say serbs are bosnians,

hope i make my self clear and understood.

iapetoc

08-04-11, 08:51

Dejavu

you are the dumpest Y-dna i have ever seen

you have a G2a3b like me,

you know that this mainly Smyrna's and minor Asian Greek probably from Hettit of Akkadian etc, and also found in Jews eskenazi i think,

and you are telling me that you are a makedonian, when the spot location of G is Thessaly area from were Argeiad family was,
seems like you must find who was your father, cause probably have same Y-Dna with Alaxander, but you speak another language, a language that is more baltic, less thracian, and almost zero the language of Alexander,

The dumpest G I have seen,

Aconform

08-04-11, 09:52

simply you are out side balkans, and you are far from Balkan History,

As an example, you your own said that Bosnian is a new tradition and culture that became a nation,

what did I say?
I said that ex one language bigger wide nation broke to 3,
is that wrong? where am I wrong?

simply at times of ottoman empire, local people change religion and converted to islam,
that slowly created a new culture,
whatwrong did I say?
nationality bosnians are south slavs, in fact for me, as also genetic proves they are same with serbs, once almost a nation, but religion divide them to 2
where the wrong in what i said so to to answer me me like that,
in balkans who have the phenomenon that politician are paid by foreigners to divide more,
As an example Fyrom, a culture?
of whom? turks? bulgarins? serbs? greeks? that became a state, and demands history and lands of other nations,
in 100 years many new nations due to religion, language, economy, or political issues,
a different culture that is new imported does not make another nation, but divides one,
as an example we call them all germans,
but Bayern, with north east Germany what common?
different culture, yet we say that are 1 nation although genetically are tottaly different,
so becarefull when you read and when you mention with word nation,
a political movement does not make a nation, as also a small culture difference,
there many nations divided either by politicians either by religion,
and slowly the are pushing that division by imput new customs and words etc,

SO PLZ DON'T PLAY THE GAME OF A POLITICIAN,
part of fyrom part of kossyfo , almsot serbia (not the north) and most of bosnia is the same Nation, simply divided by religion, politics economy, and rulers ambitions,

as most of kossyfo with north albania is almost same nation,

besides Pontic Greeks lived west of kaukasus,
cretans live in Crete,
But linguistic and genetical similarity proves that are a nation although different culture, due to Venice occupation the last and ottoman the 1rst.

a nation has not to do with politics

in fact Bosna is a true yugo-slav (south slav) country, with only difference the religion,

and since islam is new to balkan comparing christianity, we use the older terms to compare a nation,

that is why we are comparing with serbs and say they are same nation, and we don't say serbs are bosnians,

hope i make my self clear and understood.

My impression is from reading the threads here that you fall under the category of a national extremist. You seem always to be blind to any information anyone gives that does not fall in your own national romantic identity.

First off All national identities are artificial before 1800 the common people didn’t see them selves as being any thing ells then being owned by nobles and kings. And borders are just as artificial and were formed by power struggles and not according to cultural groups. To the common man it didn’t mean anything, land and people changed hands all the time, they just got a new owner. Only thing they cared about is that the new owner would not treat them to bad.

And your Greece is also a modern construction. Yes even your precious Greece. From 1823 there has gone a lot of work in making the Modern Greek identity. Even though you like to believe its all Hellenic and you guys are pure and direct descendants of the ancient Greeks. But, anyone with basic knowledge of history does not believe this. The Modern Greek state was formed just like FYROM is forming today. It is not my impression that anyone sees Modern Greek nation as having much to do with ancient Greece.

All nations have myths and legends. Most civilized nations se them as myths and legends and don’t believe in them as historic fact. Problem with you my Balkan brothers and sisters is that you guys believe in them as if they are imperial proven facts.

In Denmark: The myth about how Danish flag came to the Danish people. That it fell from the sky to a king on a campaign in the Baltic area. All know this but no one believes it. Because when we get taught history the first thing we learn is the difference from myth, legends and historical facts.

Also as a side note. Here in Denmark in the academic community Greeks are considered ultra nationalistic and if one does field work one need to consider this. We are advised to keep our opinions to our selves if they don’t fit in with Modern Greek identity.

What you need to do is learn the difference between legend myth and historical facts. And learn that just because something writes and does historical research it does not destroy you myths and legends. Because that’s what they are just good stories.

Another interesting fact. A good friend of mine who is Danish. After he was soldier in Bosnia and Kosovo he started his academic carrier as a European Ethnologist. After he traveled to islands and mainland Greece. He was utterly shocked to the core: Saying that even the x-Yugoslavs people didn’t seem that national fanatics.

DejaVu

08-04-11, 14:11

Bosnia and Bosniaks existed in history and thats a fact with evidence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina

Macedonia existed all the time but there was no countries like Albania (Shqiperia) , Bulgaria (New name on Thracian territory) or Greece (only tribes not as a country). If there is anything that did not exist are your fake countries made up by western european elite?. Kosovo did not exist as a country but was created by western europeans? - again for their purpose "divide and conquer". Last person to speak about original ethnicity is a Shqiptar (Albanian - modern and fake way to call and identify them).

There is no evidence that haplogroup G is or have anything to do with ancient Macedonians or ancient Greek tribes.

My impression is from reading the threads here that you fall under the category of a national extremist. You seem always to be blind to any information anyone gives that does not fall in your own national romantic identity.

First off All national identities are artificial before 1800 the common people didn’t see them selves as being any thing ells then being owned by nobles and kings. And borders are just as artificial and were formed by power struggles and not according to cultural groups. To the common man it didn’t mean anything, land and people changed hands all the time, they just got a new owner. Only thing they cared about is that the new owner would not treat them to bad.

And your Greece is also a modern construction. Yes even your precious Greece. From 1823 there has gone a lot of work in making the Modern Greek identity. Even though you like to believe its all Hellenic and you guys are pure and direct descendants of the ancient Greeks. But, anyone with basic knowledge of history does not believe this. The Modern Greek state was formed just like FYROM is forming today. It is not my impression that anyone sees Modern Greek nation as having much to do with ancient Greece.

All nations have myths and legends. Most civilized nations se them as myths and legends and don’t believe in them as historic fact. Problem with you my Balkan brothers and sisters is that you guys believe in them as if they are imperial proven facts.

In Denmark: The myth about how Danish flag came to the Danish people. That it fell from the sky to a king on a campaign in the Baltic area. All know this but no one believes it. Because when we get taught history the first thing we learn is the difference from myth, legends and historical facts.

Also as a side note. Here in Denmark in the academic community Greeks are considered ultra nationalistic and if one does field work one need to consider this. We are advised to keep our opinions to our selves if they don’t fit in with Modern Greek identity.

What you need to do is learn the difference between legend myth and historical facts. And learn that just because something writes and does historical research it does not destroy you myths and legends. Because that’s what they are just good stories.

Another interesting fact. A good friend of mine who is Danish. After he was soldier in Bosnia and Kosovo he started his academic carrier as a European Ethnologist. After he traveled to islands and mainland Greece. He was utterly shocked to the core: Saying that even the x-Yugoslavs people didn’t seem that national fanatics.

Greece had an enlightenment and a war of independence to have its country. FYROM was created because of Tito and yugoslavia fell apart. No greece and fyrom have nothing in common about how they came about. Of course you would know this if you knew the history you claim you do.

iapetoc is not a nationalistic extremist he just takes politics into account when understading national identities, while you do not. The powers that may be would be the happiest if the balkans are divided into 100 different countries because they can manipulate them better. Bosnians wern't considered bosnians 50 years ago, they were created. "Macedonians" were bulgarians 80 yers ago, they were also created.

He is right you traped in political correctness when talking about nationalities.

Elias2

08-04-11, 16:22

Macedonia existed all the time but there was no countries like Albania (Shqiperia) , Bulgaria (New name on Thracian territory) or Greece (only tribes not as a country). If there is anything that did not exist are your fake countries made up by western european elite?. Kosovo did not exist as a country but was created by western europeans? - again for their purpose "divide and conquer". Last person to speak about original ethnicity is a Shqiptar (Albanian - modern and fake way to call and identify them).

.

Albania didn't exsist but albanians did, they are there as a seperate people apart form the other balkan populations.

Bulgaria was just russia trying to make a vassal country in the balkans out of the south slavs like yoruself. They made their own bulgarian orthodox church apart from the greek church in constantinopolis and fought a war with the ottomans for their independance. The bulgarian axarchate church in Ohrid was the forrunner of the "macedonian" orthodox church. They're arn't the actual bulgar peoples that came over 1000 years ago.

Greeks actually did exist and no they're wern't created like "macedonians" were after world war two.

If you don't take politics into the equations you can't fully understand nationalities. Or maybe you do and you don't like what it says about you Dejavu so you ignore it.

DejaVu

08-04-11, 16:24

greece had an enlightenment and a war of independence to have its country. Fyrom was created because of tito and yugoslavia fell apart. No greece and fyrom have nothing in common about how they came about. Of course you would know this if you knew the history you claim you do.

Iapetoc is not a nationalistic extremist he just takes politics into account when understading national identities, while you do not. The powers that may be would be the happiest if the balkans are divided into 100 different countries because they can manipulate them better. Bosnians wern't considered bosnians 50 years ago, they were created. "macedonians" were bulgarians 80 yers ago, they were also created.

He is right you just play the politician when talking about nationalities.

100% wrong and fake statement.

DejaVu

08-04-11, 16:30

albania didn't exsist but albanians did, they are there as a seperate people apart form the other balkan populations.

Bulgaria was just russia trying to make a vassal country in the balkans out of the south slavs like yoruself. They made their own bulgarian orthodox church apart from the greek church in constantinopolis and fought a war with the ottomans for their independance. The bulgarian axarchate church in ohrid was the forrunner of the "macedonian" orthodox church. They're arn't the actual bulgar peoples that came over 1000 years ago.

Greeks actually did exist and no they're wern't created like "macedonians" were after world war two.

If you don't take politics into the equations you can't fully understand nationalities. Or maybe you do and you don't like what it says about you dejavu so you ignore it.

You have been proven wrong "SPAMMER" and you dont give up with your empty statements and political discussion that dont belong here. Dont forget what the thread was about - Bosniaks and Bosnia, but your IQ is low you just cant understand that.

Elias2

08-04-11, 16:42

Proven wrong how, because you say so? haha you are the spammer who just writes one line replys because you are mad that deep down you know you are not macedonian and are a political constuction of Tito in Yugoslavia.

DejaVu

08-04-11, 17:01

Proven wrong how, because you say so? haha you are the spammer who just writes one line replys because you are mad that deep down you know you are not macedonian and are a political constuction of Tito in Yugoslavia.

Think its the opposite, you are neither ancient Greek or ancient Macedonian, Thracian, Illyrian and so on but only a christian Turk and Sub-saharan and yes we know what you are, just accept it.

Elias2

08-04-11, 17:07

Think its the opposite, you are neither ancient Greek or ancient Macedonian, Thracian, Illyrian and so on but only a christian Turk and Sub-saharan and yes we know what you are, just accept it.

I think even turks would find this post funny.

Elias2

11-04-11, 22:24

Here is another example of what happens when an identity is transplanted from the top-down, the result is an artifical population which can change "identity" seemlessly.

"In the early 20th century, a census in then-independent Montenegro yielded a population that saw itself as 95 per cent Serbian.

In 1948, meanwhile, the first census after the Second World War in the newly created Republic of Montenegro mostly returned Montenegrins.

At that time, ethnic Croats, numbering only 1.7 per cent, were more numerous than Serbs.

But from 1991 to 2003 the number of Serbs in Montenegro has risen consistently from 9.7 to 32 per cent."

"The formation of a Montenegrin language, therefore, is not unprecedented, but faces a serious statistical problem. A majority of people in the republic in the 2003 census - 63 per cent - described their native language as Serbian. "

The rise of 9.7% to 32% was not due to immigration.

Gosh

18-05-11, 14:20

That's not how you should count. Try grouping the haplogroups by origin.

The dominant category is Paleolithic for both Croatia and Bosnia, but Near-East for Serbia. Croatia has more Indo-European lineages than Bosnia though.

Note that the data you copied if for Bosnia-Herzegovina, not for ethnic Bosniaks only. It also includes ethnic Serbs and Croats living in Bosnia-Herzegovina.

Ain't it looks very naive from today's perspective, Maciamo?

1. As the first, your data (from this site) are quite differend from the data from otheer sources. Your tables with genetic data are the worst which could be found in Internet. Try to check your data from this post with the latest data. You have a quite big difference.

2. It is obvious that you'll have much more "near eastern DNA" if you're geographically colser to that region. You had DNA studies which proved the closest possible similarity betven Serbs and bosnian muslims. Why you're not using that data?

3. You say: "Note that the data you copied if for Bosnia-Herzegovina, not for ethnic Bosniaks only". I can understand you. You're living in the country with a strong antiserbian propaganda. Brainwashing machine did the job pretty good.

When you're taking about Balkans, Serbs, Croats and so on, you'd have to much more facts about the history of this region. I'm talking about the history, Maciamo, not about politics.

For example, let's see a source which isn't serbian (and even more, we can say that it is- antiserbian). That's the Catholic Encyclopedia form the beggining of 20th century>

According to the census of 22 April 1895, Bosnia has 1,361,868 inhabitants and Herzegovina 229,168, giving a total population of 1,591,036. The number of persons (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11726a.htm) to the square mile is small (about 80), less than that in any of the other Austrian crown provinces excepting Salzburg (about 70). This average does not vary much in the six districts (five in Bosnia, one in Herzegovina). The number of persons (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11726a.htm) to the square mile in these districts is as follows: Doljna Tuzla, 106; Banjaluka, 96; Bihac (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biha%C4%87), 91; Serajevo, 73, Mostar (Herzegovina), 65, Travnik (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Travnik), 62. There are 5,388 settlements, of which only 11 have more than 5,000 inhabitants, while 4,689 contain less 500 persons (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11726a.htm). Excluding some 30,000 Albanians living in the south-east, the Jews (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08399a.htm) who emigrated (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10291a.htm) in earlier times from Spain (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14169b.htm), a few Osmanli Turks (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15097a.htm), the merchants, officials. and Austrian troops, the rest of the population (about 98 per cent) belong to the southern Slavonic people, the Serbs. Although one in race, the people form in religious beliefs (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02408b.htm) three sharply separated divisions: the Mohammedans (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10424a.htm), about 550,000 persons (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11726a.htm) (35 per cent), Greek Schismatics, about 674,000 persons (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11726a.htm) (43 per cent), and Catholics (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03449a.htm), about 334,000 persons (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11726a.htm) (21.3 per cent).

When you're talking about Croats in Herzegovina and Dalmatia you have to know that they are ethnical Serbs converted in Croats through the action of catholic Church approx 130 years ago.

Dear Maciamo, genetics shouldn't be related with politics but with science, history and ethnicity.

Best regards

Valmir

20-05-11, 20:37

After reading all of the Bosnians comments i concluded that Slavs loves to steal history of other nations!
Like they doing with Macedonia, and now they started with iLLyria.

zanipolo

21-05-11, 02:33

That's not how you should count. Try grouping the haplogroups by origin.

Paleolithic European haplogroups (I1, I2a, I2b) :

Croatia = 51%
Bosnia = 53%
Serbia = 35%

Near-Eastern haplogroups (E, J, T) :

Croatia = 11%
Bosnia = 24%
Serbia = 42%

Indo-European/Caucasian haplogroups (G2a, R1a, R1b)

Croatia = 38%
Bosnia = 19.5%
Serbia = 23%

The dominant category is Paleolithic for both Croatia and Bosnia, but Near-East for Serbia. Croatia has more Indo-European lineages than Bosnia though.

Note that the data you copied if for Bosnia-Herzegovina, not for ethnic Bosniaks only. It also includes ethnic Serbs and Croats living in Bosnia-Herzegovina.

Are these ancient DNA results from graves in Illyria or are they the "Dark ages migrational numbers ( 600AD )" ?

zanipolo

21-05-11, 02:36

After reading all of the Bosnians comments i concluded that Slavs loves to steal history of other nations!
Like they doing with Macedonia, and now they started with iLLyria.

Fully agree , its a pity people try to wipe out ancient culture like the illyrians, it has already happened with the Phoencians ( lebanese say they are phoencians , proven wrong already), the Egyptians of the pharohs, the Minoans, Trojans, etruscans etc etc

seemann

30-07-11, 13:03

Bosnians are Illyrians they have 50% of I2a (Illyrian)
and the Name Bosnia is real ancient Illyrian Name BOSONA.

The Propaganda of our Neighbourgs is Fall,
we are not Serbs and not Croats we are Bosnians
and the Bosnian christians are Bosnians too but they
are victims of the centauryold Propaganda of our Neighbourgs
and the DNA Tests have shown that all Bosnians are very Similar
and more similar than with croatia or Serbia.

The Truth will EVER Win

Well, as far as I was reading in all relevant historical sources- Bosnian inhabitants are ethnically much closer to Serbs and Croats. Same sources said that Islam in Bosnia appeared with Turks.

seemann

30-07-11, 13:05

After reading all of the Bosnians comments i concluded that Slavs loves to steal history of other nations!
Like they doing with Macedonia, and now they started with iLLyria.

Ha, ha, ha! When that comes from an Albanian it sounds like a joke!

seemann

30-07-11, 13:10

"Serb" in the language Bizantinaca is the word that means﻿ "slaves", and that language is usually word "serbula"﻿ means the shoes of slaves, and the word "tzerboulianous" means those who wear cheap,shoes of the poor﻿ . The Serbs were given the name because they have become slaves of the emperor Bizantinaca.

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!!! And I thought this is a place where I could find out something smart...

LeBrok

30-07-11, 17:24

You can't stop stupid people from coming here or other websites, can you. :)
Welcome to Eupedia.

zanipolo

20-08-11, 01:58

@Maciano

Any chance to see a Y-dna split between Bosnia and Herzegovina ?

zanipolo

20-08-11, 05:07

I have found the Y-Dna split from 2006

E3b1 (M78)
(B) Bosnia = 10.14
(H) Herzegovina = 7.80

G2a
B = 4.35
H = 0

J2 (M102)
B = 0
H = 1.40

I1a
B = 1.45
H = 7.08

I1b (M26) P-37
B = 52.20
H = 63.83

K
B = 0
H = 2.84

R1a (M17)
B = 24.60
H = 12.06

Q
B = 0
H = 0.71

R1b (M173)
B = 1.40
H = 3.55

zanipolo

20-08-11, 05:13

I have found the Y-Dna split from 2006

E3b1 (M78)
(B) Bosnia = 10.14
(H) Herzegovina = 7.80

G2a
B = 4.35
H = 0

J2 (M102)
B = 0
H = 1.40

I1a
B = 1.45
H = 7.08

I1b (M26) P-37
B = 52.20
H = 63.83

K
B = 0
H = 2.84

R1a (M17)
B = 24.60
H = 12.06

Q
B = 0
H = 0.71

R1b (M173)
B = 1.40
H = 3.55

julia90

21-08-11, 01:53

very tall and many goodlooking people.. The most beautiful i have seen in southern europe, i don t know if they resemble most croats or serb, but croat are more slavic looking. I have seen only catholics of herzegovina ( southern west of the country, there is a dinaroid type with light eyes and fair skin with dark hair, a dinaro mixed wit keltid maybe. Overall very tall people. East med are the second strain present.

Bodin

25-08-11, 23:45

My impression is from reading the threads here that you fall under the category of a national extremist. You seem always to be blind to any information anyone gives that does not fall in your own national romantic identity.

First off All national identities are artificial before 1800 the common people didn’t see them selves as being any thing ells then being owned by nobles and kings. And borders are just as artificial and were formed by power struggles and not according to cultural groups. To the common man it didn’t mean anything, land and people changed hands all the time, they just got a new owner. Only thing they cared about is that the new owner would not treat them to bad.

And your Greece is also a modern construction. Yes even your precious Greece. From 1823 there has gone a lot of work in making the Modern Greek identity. Even though you like to believe its all Hellenic and you guys are pure and direct descendants of the ancient Greeks. But, anyone with basic knowledge of history does not believe this. The Modern Greek state was formed just like FYROM is forming today. It is not my impression that anyone sees Modern Greek nation as having much to do with ancient Greece.

All nations have myths and legends. Most civilized nations se them as myths and legends and don’t believe in them as historic fact. Problem with you my Balkan brothers and sisters is that you guys believe in them as if they are imperial proven facts.

In Denmark: The myth about how Danish flag came to the Danish people. That it fell from the sky to a king on a campaign in the Baltic area. All know this but no one believes it. Because when we get taught history the first thing we learn is the difference from myth, legends and historical facts.

Also as a side note. Here in Denmark in the academic community Greeks are considered ultra nationalistic and if one does field work one need to consider this. We are advised to keep our opinions to our selves if they don’t fit in with Modern Greek identity.

What you need to do is learn the difference between legend myth and historical facts. And learn that just because something writes and does historical research it does not destroy you myths and legends. Because that’s what they are just good stories.

Another interesting fact. A good friend of mine who is Danish. After he was soldier in Bosnia and Kosovo he started his academic carrier as a European Ethnologist. After he traveled to islands and mainland Greece. He was utterly shocked to the core: Saying that even the x-Yugoslavs people didn’t seem that national fanatics.
This is wrong in so many levels . Have you read Engels recently because you just repeated his view of nation word to word , ofcourse you could also hear it in comunistic schools in ex-Yu. Athenians , Spartans , Tebans , Achayans , Macedonians ,... they were all Hellens , and despite they were divided in many states , they all know thea were Hellens . If Greeks/Helens are not descendants of Hellens then who is? Or you believe they just vanish in tin air , world does not begining with our generation , it was there long before , and it would be long after us. About Bosnians they are separate nation now , but descendant of Serb and Croat nation , because Serbia was compoused of Rascia and Bossnia in early midle ages , and Croatia streached to Vrbas river .

Bodin

25-08-11, 23:50

Bosnia and Bosniaks existed in history and thats a fact with evidence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina

Macedonia existed all the time but there was no countries like Albania (Shqiperia) , Bulgaria (New name on Thracian territory) or Greece (only tribes not as a country). If there is anything that did not exist are your fake countries made up by western european elite?. Kosovo did not exist as a country but was created by western europeans? - again for their purpose "divide and conquer". Last person to speak about original ethnicity is a Shqiptar (Albanian - modern and fake way to call and identify them).

There is no evidence that haplogroup G is or have anything to do with ancient Macedonians or ancient Greek tribes.

iGenea - My Primitive tribe is Celtic or Vikings.
Region of origin: Southwestern Europe.
Yes Bosnia existed from X century , what about before ? Macedonia also didnt existed , or Albania , and Greek was surely there -Byzantine empire , like Bulgaria -since 680 on Balkans and before on Black sea coast

Bodin

26-08-11, 00:08

After reading all of the Bosnians comments i concluded that Slavs loves to steal history of other nations!
Like they doing with Macedonia, and now they started with iLLyria.
What Slavs ? Slavs has over 50% R1a 3.500 years old , and Serbs only 5% ( and 10% of nonSlavic R1a 11.000 years old ), Croats 25% but mainly from Slavonia .
Only Illyrian DNA is E1b1b and J , I2a2Din is not Illyrian but Sarmatian , if it would be Illyrian it would be present in South Italy ( Mesapi were Illyrian tribe ) , and Alexandar the Great would carry it to Asia and Egypt , but is not . Also it is old only 2.500 years and clustered - so it comed recently -it is not on Balkans since Paleolite.

Nova123

04-09-11, 15:09

Bosnia and Herzegovina are the Highest on (Y-dna I2a2a) 65%

Bodin

04-09-11, 19:09

Yes Herzegovina is highest on I2a2-Din -71% , but Bosnia 41% not more than Serbia or Croatia.

Templar

24-10-11, 00:30

Pre-Ottoman Bosnia was overwhelmingly Catholic. Herzegovina on the other hand was mostly Orthodox but with a sizeable Catholic minority. The modern-day Orthodox population in Northern Bosnia is the result of migrations of mostly Vlachs, who were to serve as border guards for the Ottomans. This was required because a huge number of the Northern Catholic population fled to Croatia and Hungary in order to avoid Ottoman rule (this happened after they heard that the Eastern part of the country was conquered).

The Bogomils were always a small minority, represented mostly by a couple of Monastic orders (never exceeded over 20% of Bosnia & Herzegovina)

Bodin

25-10-11, 04:30

Pre-Ottoman Bosnia was overwhelmingly Catholic. Herzegovina on the other hand was mostly Orthodox but with a sizeable Catholic minority. The modern-day Orthodox population in Northern Bosnia is the result of migrations of mostly Vlachs, who were to serve as border guards for the Ottomans. This was required because a huge number of the Northern Catholic population fled to Croatia and Hungary in order to avoid Ottoman rule (this happened after they heard that the Eastern part of the country was conquered).

The Bogomils were always a small minority, represented mostly by a couple of Monastic orders (never exceeded over 20% of Bosnia & Herzegovina)
Yes preotoman Bosnia was mainly catholic , Bosnian kings were catholic . Yes Herzegovina was ortodox but there was also a lot of catholics to . No they were not Vlach , they were Serbs from Serbia with Vlach status - it is not etnicity it is simply form of soldier that is fighting for small estate that is given to him and is released from some taxes . Bogumils were mostly in east Bosnia and 20% could be true but more researches should be done .
Many of catholics escaped , many were killed and many where islamized or crossed to ortodoxy . Catholics payed full taxes , orthodox only half and muslims none . My family is originaly from Herzegovina , and they were granted Vlach status and moved to Lika to fight for Turks , after Venetian conquest of Lika they becomed they soldiers , but after a decade or so crossed back on Turkic side and settled in Bosnia . Up to this point they were catholic , and than they crossed to orthodoxy , after that they moved to Serbia

Templar

28-10-11, 20:49

Well the vast majority of Vlachs were Latin-speaking descendants of the native populations of the Balkans (Illyrians, Dacians, and Thracians). The vast majority of them were Orthodox and so many adopted the Serbian ethnicity in order to unite with the Serbs (who were also Orthodox) against the Ottomans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlachs

But it doesn't even matter what they considered themselves, since all that really matters is the autosomal DNA of a population. Serbs, Bosnians, Vlachs, and Croatians are all overwhelmingly I2a1b-Din in their autosomal DNA, and thats why they are all tall, strong-boned, possess wide shoulders, and above-average muscle mass. There are even theories that the Spartans were descendants of people who were also mostly I2a1b-Din, and that this explains their superior military capabilities.

Knovas

28-10-11, 22:23

I know a girl who is descendant of Greek Vlachs and she looks quite Northeast European, as well as her family members and others from the same ethnicity according to what she says (I don't know much about it). Very light skin, eyes, and hair.

I really wonder how different would appear from the main Greek population in autosomal tests. At least, she doesn't look like the typical Greek, no way.

Dale Cooper

29-10-11, 04:30

Dalmatia in Croatia this People are absolut different to northcroatians
but they similar to Bosnians dalmatia must back to Mother Bosnia thats
Dalmatias Home but that never will be and Dalmatia must Cry like a Baby
without Mother.

"mother bosnia", are you a retard? Dalmatia, only half of dalmatia was under Kingdom of Bosnia for 4 years (1386-1390)... HEY... 4 GOD DAMN YEARS... and rest of 1500 years from 6th century till today WAS A REGION DALMATIA mostly under VENICE and under kingdom of Croatia and Austro-Hungary, so don't give me your bosnian crap about dalmatia, you don't have anything to do with us... we are near by geography, true, but we are far away from you by light years based on culture, legacy, architecture and history and it's like that for 1400 years... TWO DIFFERENT WORLDS, ok? now piss off.

P.S: Don't know why idiots like "bosna507" are allowed to write here?

My God... some bosnian farmer imagined that "he has somethin to do with" Dalmatia hahah, hey bosnian boy, you know very well how we Croats, not only we dalmatians, look on you bosnians, it's better that I don't say it here... it's like redneck from texas says that "he have somethin to do with" I dunno...Prince William of UK. lol

LeBrok

29-10-11, 05:15

Dale, you got infraction. You can disagree, but never insult a member of Eupedia.

Templar

31-10-11, 23:57

Bosnia was an independent kingdom longer than Croatia. Croatia was always Hungary's play-toy and servant. Also, Croatian achievements are NOT your own achievements. Each individual can only take credit for his OWN inventions, ideas, and actions.
I2a2 has nothing to do with slavs btw. All I haplogroups belong to the Cro-Magnon family. Cro-Magnons were tall, dark haired/eyed, heavy-boned, and muscular and Bosnians have the highest rates of HP I in all of Europe (and therefore are the closest to the original Europeans).

razor

01-11-11, 00:09

Bosnia was an independent kingdom longer than Croatia. Croatia was always Hungary's play-toy and servant. Also, Croatian achievements are NOT your own achievements. Each individual can only take credit for his OWN inventions, ideas, and actions.
I2a2 has nothing to do with slavs btw. All I haplogroups belong to the Cro-Magnon family. Cro-Magnons were and Bosnians have the highest rates of HP I in all of Europe (and therefore are the closest to the original Europeans).

Just in passing: I2a2 has nothing to do with "tall, dark haired/eyed, heavy-boned, and muscular ". That's autosomal stuff, not Y-DNA stuff.

sparkey

01-11-11, 00:24

I2a2 has nothing to do with slavs btw. All I haplogroups belong to the Cro-Magnon family.

These are not mutually exclusive. Haplogroup I is indeed the best candidate for a living descendant of Cro Magnon Y-DNA, but it also seems that expanding Slavs brought I2a-Din to the Balkans... at least, that's the best-guess theory we have right now to explain its youth and diversity patterns.

Note: that doesn't mean that Cro-Magnons were Slavs, it just means that Slavs, or a subset of Slavs, have a "Paleolithic remnant" component to their genetics with I2a-Din, like Germanic peoples do with I1 and I2a-Cont.

Cro-Magnons were tall, dark haired/eyed, heavy-boned, and muscular and Bosnians have the highest rates of HP I in all of Europe (and therefore are the closest to the original Europeans).

I'm not sure if you're right here, but having "the highest rates of HP I in all of Europe" does not imply that they are "the closest to the original Europeans." You have to allow for Y-line replacement, as seems to have occurred with the Basques (although their replacement was apparently away from I in favor of R1b, and I'm saying that with Bosnians it might be away from other haplogroups in favor of I).

razor

01-11-11, 01:03

These are not mutually exclusive.

That's not the point. I'm getting tired of people blabbing away with Y-DNA mythologies. Technically the Y-DNA has nothing whatsoever to do with discreet physical appearances, or ethnicities as such, or languages, or cultures, or histories. This simple fact seems to escape a lot of posters.

sparkey

01-11-11, 01:12

That's not the point. I'm getting tired of people blabbing away with Y-DNA mythologies. Technically the Y-DNA has nothing whatsoever to do with discreet physical appearances, or ethnicities as such, or languages, or cultures, or histories. This simple fact seems to escape a lot of posters.

It's all about correlation, and historical populations carrying a certain haplogroup having a certain culture or trait. I think it's worthwhile to investigate. But you're right that many don't understand the complexities of such interactions.

I wasn't really responding to you by the way, were you thinking we were disagreeing about something?

Knovas

01-11-11, 01:37

These are not mutually exclusive. Haplogroup I is indeed the best candidate for a living descendant of Cro Magnon Y-DNA, but it also seems that expanding Slavs brought I2a-Din to the Balkans... at least, that's the best-guess theory we have right now to explain its youth and diversity patterns.

Note: that doesn't mean that Cro-Magnons were Slavs, it just means that Slavs, or a subset of Slavs, have a "Paleolithic remnant" component to their genetics with I2a-Din, like Germanic peoples do with I1 and I2a-Cont.

I'm not sure if you're right here, but having "the highest rates of HP I in all of Europe" does not imply that they are "the closest to the original Europeans." You have to allow for Y-line replacement, as seems to have occurred with the Basques (although their replacement was apparently away from I in favor of R1b, and I'm saying that with Bosnians it might be away from other haplogroups in favor of I).
Good points as usual.

There's lack of Bosnian data, but I wouldn't bet they have retained a lot of Paleolithic DNA. The Balkans have a lot of different influences, and Bosnians need considerable isolation factor to get reports like this, wich I think is absent. In Iberia, for example, there are enough geographic elements to allow the isolation of Paleolithic Europeans and prosper exceedingly well. For the moment, since the Euro7 Calculator was developed, Iberians are the only ethnic group wich appearently retained most of this element (I2a1a* and similars in this case), although it doesn't mean they are the ones having more.

In the Northernmost of Europe, don't know perhaps if the Finns or others, it's also possible to have retained a lot of the original I1 people. The problem is that with the Northwestern and Northeastern clusters, it's not possible to infer the aprox percent of R1a, R1b, I1, etc.

Templar

01-11-11, 14:14

I'm not sure if you're right here, but having "the highest rates of HP I in all of Europe" does not imply that they are "the closest to the original Europeans." You have to allow for Y-line replacement, as seems to have occurred with the Basques

I never said I was talking about Y-DNA, I was ofcourse talking about Autosomal DNA data.

Haplogroup I is indeed the best candidate for a living descendant of Cro Magnon Y-DNA, but it also seems that expanding Slavs brought I2a-Din to the Balkans... at least, that's the best-guess theory we have right now to explain its youth and diversity patterns.

I2a-Din has nothing to do with Slavs. Its supposed connection with Slavs is spread by slavophiles in the Balkans who are still hoping to pass as Slavs even after looking at the autosomal DNA data for their countries. How is I2a-Din correlated with slavic migrations, when the heartlands of the Slavs (Western Russia) have almost none of it. On top of this, the supposed homeland of the slavs not only lacks I2a-Din, it has relatively low levels of ANY I haplogroup. Russians, Ukrainians, and Belurussians, are as slavic as it gets and they have way lower rates of HP I than Yugoslav people. And Poland which Croats (and some Serbs) claim is the ancestral home of the South Slavs has even lower rates.

The natural conclusion is that I2a-Din did not arrive with the migration of Slavs, instead it was already long there. Also keep in mind that the most isolated (often mountainous) parts of the Balkans are the ones with the highest HP I composition.

Templar

01-11-11, 14:18

The Balkans have a lot of different influences, and Bosnians need considerable isolation factor to get reports like this, wich I think is absent

Bosnia was quite isolated due to its mountains. Most conquerors went around it in order to avoid having to fight through its dangerous terrain (which was also perfect for guerrilla-style tactics). The Mongols for example sent raiding parties into both Croatia and Serbia, but never to Bosnia.

Templar

01-11-11, 14:20

That's not the point. I'm getting tired of people blabbing away with Y-DNA mythologies

Are you talking about me? Because I wasn't talking about Y-DNA data, but rather autosomal data. And there are no "mythologies" about it. If you weren't talking about me, never mind then.

Knovas

01-11-11, 14:45

Bosnia was quite isolated due to its mountains. Most conquerors went around it in order to avoid having to fight through its dangerous terrain (which was also perfect for guerrilla-style tactics). The Mongols for example sent raiding parties into both Croatia and Serbia, but never to Bosnia.
But you are talking about historical times. When I refer to isolation, I mean that thousands of years of acceptable preservation are required, and considering its geographical point, I find it difficult for Bosnia (and more if we check different results from Balkan samples available right now).

Not comparable to Iberia with two huge genetic barriers: the Mediterranean sea and the Pyrenees. As I said, I wouldn't bet for Bosnians to have retained the highest Paleolithic element. The answer in my opinion, must be searched in Iberia or in the Northernmost, being still Iberia the most likely option. The fact it was the main refuge during the last glacial age, speaks even more in its favour.

razor

01-11-11, 16:10

Are you talking about me? Because I wasn't talking about Y-DNA data, but rather autosomal data. And there are no "mythologies" about it. If you weren't talking about me, never mind then.

Well then you'd better take a refresher course in genetic nomenclature. I2 et sim. are Y-DNA markers which imply nothing per se about autosomal values. Autosomal study has not yet progressed to the point of having specific markers (though various hobbyists have been using their own labels).

You're also a bit behind the latest science as concerns the historicity of the I2a-Din marker. We now have the analyses of Nordtvedt and Verenic (no one has yet come up with effective refutations) which strongly back the view that I2a-Din is very young (not earlier than the first centuries BCE), that it spread to the Balkans with the Slavic expansions of the 6th and 7th cs. (hence at that time it was definitely a "Slavic" marker), and that, independently of percentages, there are far more individuals with that marker (in terms of absolute numbers) among "northern" Slavs than among southern Slavs.

sparkey

01-11-11, 17:41

First of all, ditto razor. As he says, you shouldn't use "Haplogroup I" if you intend to talk about autosomal DNA, and the I2a-Din debate has been rehashed over and over, on this thread (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?26903-How-did-I2a-Din-get-to-the-Balkans) as well as others, with the best analyses still coming from Nordtvedt and Verenich. I've outlined what is necessary for the Paleolithic continuity theory to hold, and it's much less likely than what is necessary for the Slavic theory to hold.

Its supposed connection with Slavs is spread by slavophiles in the Balkans who are still hoping to pass as Slavs even after looking at the autosomal DNA data for their countries.

You're not accusing Nordtvedt and Verenich of being Slavophiles in the Balkans, are you? They're the main ones advancing this theory, at least, the main ones with credibility.

How is I2a-Din correlated with slavic migrations, when the heartlands of the Slavs (Western Russia) have almost none of it.

(1) Western Russia has well over 10% of it and (2) the Slavs who advanced on the Balkans probably didn't come directly from Western Russia, which obviously has a higher R1a:I2a ratio.

On top of this, the supposed homeland of the slavs not only lacks I2a-Din, it has relatively low levels of ANY I haplogroup.

Irrelevant. I2a-Din is somewhat of an outlier on the Haplogroup I tree, with its closest relative a rare British subclade, and no other major subclades anciently in the same geographic area other than maybe the very distantly related I2a-Cont3. So we don't expect, and don't find, major ancient expansions of other Haplogroup I subclades anywhere in Eastern Europe.

Russians, Ukrainians, and Belurussians, are as slavic as it gets and they have way lower rates of HP I than Yugoslav people.

I don't understand why everybody thinks that North Slavs are the Slavs. Why can't we think of both North Slavs and South Slavs as two branches off the same trunk, like we think of the varieties of Germanic? That seems like the better default assumption. That trunk, then, would include both R1a and I2a.

Sile

01-11-11, 20:11

I don't understand why everybody thinks that North Slavs are the Slavs. Why can't we think of both North Slavs and South Slavs as two branches off the same trunk, like we think of the varieties of Germanic? That seems like the better default assumption. That trunk, then, would include both R1a and I2a.

this is because you exclude the other markers which differ between north and south.

also why do you exclude TRobb theories on I as he and KN had discussions without conclusion

sparkey

01-11-11, 20:29

this is because you exclude the other markers which differ between north and south.

Well, there are obviously markers that one possesses that the other doesn't tend to (like N in North Slavs and E in South Slavs). A lot of times these are remnants of the previous dominant population in the areas that got expanded into. I2a-Din and Slavic varieties of R1a don't seem to fit that pattern, however, hence my proposal that both were part of the Slavic trunk.

also why do you exclude TRobb theories on I as he and KN had discussions without conclusion

What does Terry Robb have to say on I2a-Din? I've only read him on I1. I suppose, to be consistent, he would date I2a-Din as about 1.5 times as old as Nordtvedt does? It still wouldn't affect the diversity patterns we see via Verenich, though.

Sile

02-11-11, 08:04

Well, there are obviously markers that one possesses that the other doesn't tend to (like N in North Slavs and E in South Slavs). A lot of times these are remnants of the previous dominant population in the areas that got expanded into. I2a-Din and Slavic varieties of R1a don't seem to fit that pattern, however, hence my proposal that both were part of the Slavic trunk.

What does Terry Robb have to say on I2a-Din? I've only read him on I1. I suppose, to be consistent, he would date I2a-Din as about 1.5 times as old as Nordtvedt does? It still wouldn't affect the diversity patterns we see via Verenich, though.

I meant that old yugoslav areas that neighbour Bosnia

Bodin

02-11-11, 17:04

Well the vast majority of Vlachs were Latin-speaking descendants of the native populations of the Balkans (Illyrians, Dacians, and Thracians). The vast majority of them were Orthodox and so many adopted the Serbian ethnicity in order to unite with the Serbs (who were also Orthodox) against the Ottomans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlachs

But it doesn't even matter what they considered themselves, since all that really matters is the autosomal DNA of a population. Serbs, Bosnians, Vlachs, and Croatians are all overwhelmingly I2a1b-Din in their autosomal DNA, and thats why they are all tall, strong-boned, possess wide shoulders, and above-average muscle mass. There are even theories that the Spartans were descendants of people who were also mostly I2a1b-Din, and that this explains their superior military capabilities.
But Vlachs - descendants of old Balkan populations and Vlachs Turkic military order are not the same . Spartans were most probably G haplogroup like Macedonians , there are also some interesting letters from Jewish head priest to Spartans that claim common origins. I believe I2a1b is Iranic - Sarmathian and was brought on Balkans by Serbs and Croats and estimated age of I2a1b speaks against it Balkanic origins

Bodin

02-11-11, 17:10

Bosnia was an independent kingdom longer than Croatia. Croatia was always Hungary's play-toy and servant. Also, Croatian achievements are NOT your own achievements. Each individual can only take credit for his OWN inventions, ideas, and actions.
I2a2 has nothing to do with slavs btw. All I haplogroups belong to the Cro-Magnon family. Cro-Magnons were tall, dark haired/eyed, heavy-boned, and muscular and Bosnians have the highest rates of HP I in all of Europe (and therefore are the closest to the original Europeans).
No Bosnia was not independent kingdom more than Croatia , Bosnia had kingdom only for 100 years ( 1377 - 1463) . Bosnians dont have highest rate of I in Europe , Herzegovina has , and Herzegovina was separate state - Hum / Helm , Travunija / Tribunia and Konavle / Canalia she was under Bosnia for only short period since king Tvrtko to fall of Bosnia ( under 100 years ) .

Bodin

02-11-11, 17:15

First of all, ditto razor. As he says, you shouldn't use "Haplogroup I" if you intend to talk about autosomal DNA, and the I2a-Din debate has been rehashed over and over, on this thread (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?26903-How-did-I2a-Din-get-to-the-Balkans) as well as others, with the best analyses still coming from Nordtvedt and Verenich. I've outlined what is necessary for the Paleolithic continuity theory to hold, and it's much less likely than what is necessary for the Slavic theory to hold.

You're not accusing Nordtvedt and Verenich of being Slavophiles in the Balkans, are you? They're the main ones advancing this theory, at least, the main ones with credibility.

(1) Western Russia has well over 10% of it and (2) the Slavs who advanced on the Balkans probably didn't come directly from Western Russia, which obviously has a higher R1a:I2a ratio.

Irrelevant. I2a-Din is somewhat of an outlier on the Haplogroup I tree, with its closest relative a rare British subclade, and no other major subclades anciently in the same geographic area other than maybe the very distantly related I2a-Cont3. So we don't expect, and don't find, major ancient expansions of other Haplogroup I subclades anywhere in Eastern Europe.

I don't understand why everybody thinks that North Slavs are the Slavs. Why can't we think of both North Slavs and South Slavs as two branches off the same trunk, like we think of the varieties of Germanic? That seems like the better default assumption. That trunk, then, would include both R1a and I2a.
But in that case they would have about same ratio betwen R1a : I2a1b and that is not the case

sparkey

02-11-11, 17:54

But in that case they would have about same ratio betwen R1a : I2a1b and that is not the case

Not necessarily; to take Germanic branches as a parallel example, the levels of R1a (and less so R1b-U106, and even less so I1 and I2a-Cont) vary drastically between the different Germanic branches, even though those combined make up the "default" Germanic Y-DNA signature.

Clearly, geographically distinct subsets of groups can have different Y-DNA frequencies, and those can be magnified during separate expansions. If I'm right about the Slavs carrying mostly I2a-Din and R1a initially, they could be an (admittedly extreme) example of this pattern.

I really think you need the same thing to happen for the Sarmatians anyway... to be a branch of Iranians that are I2a-Din dominant requires the same pattern. Again, the question isn't about the relative Y-DNA frequencies, the question is about the locations of the diversity hotspots, and what that tells us. You've yet to find anything that contradicts those that Verenich found, and those that Verenich found match Slavic expansions quite well. It could be a lack of more Eastern samples, I admit, but for the Sarmatians to "win" here, you'll need to find Eastern samples, ancient or modern, that push back the STR dating of I2a-Din as a whole. Until that happens, the Sarmatians just don't seem like a good assumption to me.

Dale Cooper

13-03-12, 11:30

Bosnians are Illyrians they have 50% of I2a (Illyrian)
and the Name Bosnia is real ancient Illyrian Name BOSONA.

The Propaganda of our Neighbourgs is Fall,
we are not Serbs and not Croats we are Bosnians
and the Bosnian christians are Bosnians too but they
are victims of the centauryold Propaganda of our Neighbourgs
and the DNA Tests have shown that all Bosnians are very Similar
and more similar than with croatia or Serbia.

The Truth will EVER Win

No offence but you make some basic mistakes in your approach to I2a2, yes it's true that there is 50% of I2a2 in Bosnia, (In Croatia I2a2 is 42%), but you cannot come here and name that haplogroup as "Illyrian"; because by doing that you are confusing people here and making your own theory as "valid archeology and history". First of all, I2a2 is Paleolithic european haplogroup, it's much older than Illyrians as ethnicity and others ethnicity, and you don't have any right to call it "Illyrian", it's I2a2 HG, yes it's autohtone to area of present day Croatia and Bosnia, that's it, it's autohtone.

Why do I say that you cannot name it as "Illyrian", because I2a2 doesn't go above 10% in Albanian people, their dominant haplogroup is E1b1b, and E1b1b is dominant on Epirus in last 6000 years, so it's logical to say that not all "Illyrian" tribes shared the same genetic, means Illyrian tribes on Epirus had E1b1b HG and tribes on present day Croatia and Bosnia had I2a2, they were "Illyrian" maybe by culture, and that is also questionable.

Because by calling it "Illyrian" you are making a "monopol" on that name, which is not fair and not right, not in archeological, history or genetical way, you should rather say it's autohtone haplogroup of area of Bosnia and Croatia and that is it.

Templar

14-05-12, 18:42

Why do I say that you cannot name it as "Illyrian",

Yeah many people don't realize that most ancient civilizations and tribal communities were already hybrids of two or more different genetic and cultural groups/clusters. Just the fact that Illyrians spoke an Indo-European language, destroys the credibility of using "Illyrian" as a genetic group. Illyrians likely had a ruling class which was of Indo-European ancestry, while the rest of the population was likely a mix of neolithic migrants and indigenous paleolithic people.

Some though claim that the Western Balkans became underpopulated after the fall of the Roman Empire, and that the modern inhabitants of it aren't reflective of its ancient ones. I myself am undecided about this, I am waiting for more autosomal testing of all of Europe; this will make things much clearer to analyse and conclude things.

Gosh

15-05-12, 11:07

How we can talk about some Illyrians if their hg is only 2000 y.o.?

Bearers of hg I didn't live in the region of former Yugoslavia 2000 years ago. Anything else is a story for little kids.

mihaitzateo

16-05-12, 12:57

Well in north Romania we have a village called Bozna.
http://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bozna,_S%C4%83laj
Compare with:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosna_%28river%29
The pronunciation is almost identical of Bozna from Romania with Bosna from Bosnia.
Except s with z .
http://www.forvo.com/search/%D0%91%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BD%D0%B0/
Written in cyrilic Bosna is Босна and Bozna from Romania is Бозна.

Gosh

16-05-12, 14:48

No, this is completelly different.
Name Bozna is for sure derived from Slavic word: Bog (God).

BTW, Bosnia is Din-S. There's no Din-S bearers in Romania.

how yes no 3

17-05-12, 02:41

i never heard a satisfactory explanation of origin of word Bosna...
I do not think it is Slavic word, and I also do not recall reading about it being ancient name of the region...

I think that name might be related to lot of woods...
e.g. in Dutch "Bos" = woods
in French "bois"
in Italian woods = "bosco"

a possible scenario is that Germanic Goths who rulled area before Slavs had a word for woods same as Dutch do.. "Bos"
so they would call a region that is largely woods - Bos-nia
later Slavic settlers would adopt name without knowing its meaning...

words for regions derived from "woods" are relatively common...
e.g. large area in Serbia is called "Šumadija" which is derived from Slavic word for woods (šuma)

Dianatomia

17-05-12, 05:36

i never heard a satisfactory explanation of origin of word Bosna...
I do not think it is Slavic word, and I also do not recall reading about it being ancient name of the region...

I think that name might be related to lot of woods...
e.g. in Dutch "Bos" = woods
in French "bois"
in Italian woods = "bosco"

a possible scenario is that Germanic Goths who rulled area before Slavs had a word for woods same as Dutch do.. "Bos"
so they would call a region that is largely woods - Bos-nia
later Slavic settlers would adopt name without knowing its meaning...

words for regions derived from "woods" are relatively common...
e.g. large area in Serbia is called "Šumadija" which is derived from Slavic word for woods (šuma)

The name of the geographical region is irrelevant to the origin and/or identity of the people. I.e.
proving Bosna may have Illyrian roots does not make them Illyrian. Much less that they had an Illyrian conciousness at some time. Historical documentation can prove how the people in that region identified themselves. As such, there were times where they identified themselves as orthodox Serbs. There is no doubt about that.

Likewise, the fact that the Bosnians may have identified them as Slavs or Serbs does not mean that they don't have (at least in part) Illyrian origin. 'Serb' and 'Illyrian origin' does not have to be an oxymoron.

Finally, we do not know if I2a2 is Illyrian.

zanipolo

17-05-12, 09:24

some say

A Gothic tribe Besi moved to the territory of todays Bosnia 80 years before Slavs; the tribe remained after the Slav arrival from the east. The name Bosnia originated from the name of this tribe; personal name Besim is one of the oldest Bosnian names.
http://www.ex-yupress.com/ljiljan/ljiljan1.html

Dianatomia

17-05-12, 21:53

some say

A Gothic tribe Besi moved to the territory of todays Bosnia 80 years before Slavs; the tribe remained after the Slav arrival from the east. The name Bosnia originated from the name of this tribe; personal name Besim is one of the oldest Bosnian names.
http://www.ex-yupress.com/ljiljan/ljiljan1.html

Again, if at some point of time a tribe has been absorbed by the people living in the region of what is now Bosnia, that doesn't mean that they did not identify themselves as Slavs or Serbs at some later point of time. Many tribes have been absorbed by many peoples at different points of time.

If you propose this hypothesis as to find an explenation for the etymology of the name, that's much appreciated. However, if you want to prove that Bosniacs were 'always' something else rather than Slavs or Serbs (as the author tries to advocate), then for the above reason I find it rather irrelevant and pseudo-scientific.

Bosniacs today obviously do not consider them to be Serbs or Croats. That's fine and they have every right to feel as they wish, but they can not change the fact that historically they are essentially a branch of that cultural mainframe which took a different path.

Templar

17-05-12, 22:28

Bosniacs today obviously do not consider them to be Serbs or Croats. That's fine and they have every right to feel as they wish, but they can not change the fact that historically they are essentially a branch of that cultural mainframe which took a different path.

You are equating Balkans Slavs with Croats and Serbs. Minor Slavic tribes already existed in the Western Balkans before the arrival of the Serbs and Croats. Of-course these Slavs would find refuge in Bosnia where the terrain is very mountainous, during the Croat/Serb migrations.

As for the question of whether the inhabitants of Bosnia were really Croat or really Serb in 1180, it cannot be answered, for two reasons: first, because we lack evidence, and secondly, because the question lacks meaning. We can say that the majority of the Bosnian territory (in 1180) was probably occupied by Croats - or at least, by Slavs under Croat rule - in the seventh century; but that is a tribal label which has little or no meaning five centuries later. The Bosnians were generally closer to the Croats in their religious and political history; but to apply the modern notion of Croat identity (something constructed in recent centuries out of religion, history, and language) to anyone in this period would be an anachronism. All that one can sensibly say about the ethnic identity of the Bosnians is this: they were the Slavs who lived in Bosnia.

Dianatomia

18-05-12, 02:20

You are equating Balkans Slavs with Croats and Serbs. Minor Slavic tribes already existed in the Western Balkans before the arrival of the Serbs and Croats. Of-course these Slavs would find refuge in Bosnia where the terrain is very mountainous, during the Croat/Serb migrations.

As for the question of whether the inhabitants of Bosnia were really Croat or really Serb in 1180, it cannot be answered, for two reasons: first, because we lack evidence, and secondly, because the question lacks meaning. We can say that the majority of the Bosnian territory (in 1180) was probably occupied by Croats - or at least, by Slavs under Croat rule - in the seventh century; but that is a tribal label which has little or no meaning five centuries later. The Bosnians were generally closer to the Croats in their religious and political history; but to apply the modern notion of Croat identity (something constructed in recent centuries out of religion, history, and language) to anyone in this period would be an anachronism. All that one can sensibly say about the ethnic identity of the Bosnians is this: they were the Slavs who lived in Bosnia.

I am not equating medieval Balkan Slavs with the 'modern' notion of Serbs and Croats (AND Bulgarians if you will), because the modern notion of nationhood has developed in the last two centuries. Moreover, during that time some groups (like the Bosniacs and Macedonian Slavs) have developed modern identities of their own.

In medieval times the notion of being Serb, Croat or Bulgarian may have been vague. But, this does not alter the fact that all modern Slavic nations in the Balkans can trace their roots to medieval Croats, Serbs, Bulgarians. It is no coincidence that Ottoman documents, a few centuries after your reference(1180), refer only to Croats, Serbs and Bulgarians. Not simply Slavs and certainly not Bosnians.

So I guess my point is that, in between the Balkan Slavs and the modern Serbs and Croats, there have also been Serbs and Croats with a vague medieval ethnic connotation. Many ancestors of the Bosniacs belonged to that group.

Yetos

18-05-12, 05:27

You are equating Balkans Slavs with Croats and Serbs. Minor Slavic tribes already existed in the Western Balkans before the arrival of the Serbs and Croats. Of-course these Slavs would find refuge in Bosnia where the terrain is very mountainous, during the Croat/Serb migrations.

As for the question of whether the inhabitants of Bosnia were really Croat or really Serb in 1180, it cannot be answered, for two reasons: first, because we lack evidence, and secondly, because the question lacks meaning. We can say that the majority of the Bosnian territory (in 1180) was probably occupied by Croats - or at least, by Slavs under Croat rule - in the seventh century; but that is a tribal label which has little or no meaning five centuries later. The Bosnians were generally closer to the Croats in their religious and political history; but to apply the modern notion of Croat identity (something constructed in recent centuries out of religion, history, and language) to anyone in this period would be an anachronism. All that one can sensibly say about the ethnic identity of the Bosnians is this: they were the Slavs who lived in Bosnia.

The point you just pass is the change of religion,
Bosnia become total Slavic losing all the before cultures,
then at Ottoman times some Slavs (Serbs or Croats) change religion,
that means they change culture,
these Slavs create a new culture are the Bosnians,
in fact the 3 mainly Slavic - Islamic cultures are the original Pomaks, the Albanian Gorani and the Serb-Croat Bosnians,
Any effort to claim that Bosnians where Slavs from Antiquity or another culture at Medieval, is just not wise,
Simply Bosnia change culture LAST in Balkans when change of religion happened,
In Bosnia some families might be from proto-Serbs or from proto-Croats who enter Balkans,

THE THING THAT YOU MUST UNDERSTAND, IS THAT EXCEPT DALMATIA, ALL THE REST AREA, TODAY'S IS AFTER RELIGION MAINLY NATIONALITIES,

All modern Balkanic nationalities are after a common thing, some memories, which for Bosnians are mainly late, new, cause before they had common memories with Serbs and Croats,

Just think, Kossovo, is it a nationality? No it is a state, yet it may become in future,
same with Bosnia, it become nationality when Islamization start,
until then it was Serb or Croat,

Templar

18-05-12, 09:02

But, this does not alter the fact that all modern Slavic nations in the Balkans can trace their roots to medieval Croats, Serbs, Bulgarians.

That isn't true, there were many other minor Slavic tribes.

which for Bosnians are mainly late, new, cause before they had common memories with Serbs and Croats,

There is no evidence at all that Medieval Bosnians considered themselves either Croat or Serb.

Dianatomia

18-05-12, 10:35

That isn't true, there were many other minor Slavic tribes.

Sure, there were subtribes or tribal societies with little ethnic conciousness. Not a rare phenomenon at all. These kind of tribes would have been present all over the balkans in medieval times and not just the Bosnian region. Likewise, not all Slavs in Bosnia belonged to tribal societies. Some considered themselves just as Serb as many serbs in Serbia.

There is no evidence at all that Medieval Bosnians considered themselves either Croat or Serb.

I think we should pose the question the other way around, since there is even lesser evidence of distinct medieval Bosnians.

How can we - in a medieval sense - distinguish the Slavs from Bosnia from the Slavs from Serbia and Croatia?
The only way to do that is by cherry picking, because under the same criteria we could distinguish slavic tribes in the medieval regions of serbia.

On the other hand, when one asks how we can distinguish Croats and Serbs in medieval times. That becomes more clear.

Yetos

18-05-12, 11:07

That isn't true, there were many other minor Slavic tribes.

There is no evidence at all that Medieval Bosnians considered themselves either Croat or Serb.

ok, let me 'swallow' what you say,
I ask you now
IS THERE ANY EVIDENCE THAT BOSNIANS CONSIDERED THEM SELVES AS LOCAL FROM ANTIQUITY?
IS THERE EVIDENCE OF AN EXPRESSION OF NATIONALITY BEFORE OTTOMAN EMPIRE?
(Don't answer with some movements of some rulers in effort to control power)

except Dalmatia the rest in area are just like Greeks and Turks in many areas
It is hard to distinguish who is really Turk or Greek especially in agricultural areas cause the main difference is religion, in 1900 you could identify a village by its church if had bells or minarets
but it was difficult to identify people,

zanipolo

18-05-12, 12:01

Again, if at some point of time a tribe has been absorbed by the people living in the region of what is now Bosnia, that doesn't mean that they did not identify themselves as Slavs or Serbs at some later point of time. Many tribes have been absorbed by many peoples at different points of time.

If you propose this hypothesis as to find an explenation for the etymology of the name, that's much appreciated. However, if you want to prove that Bosniacs were 'always' something else rather than Slavs or Serbs (as the author tries to advocate), then for the above reason I find it rather irrelevant and pseudo-scientific.

Bosniacs today obviously do not consider them to be Serbs or Croats. That's fine and they have every right to feel as they wish, but they can not change the fact that historically they are essentially a branch of that cultural mainframe which took a different path.

whats a serb and a croat to you?

The only true genetic slavs are poles and ukraine people, the rest are iranic, turkic, thraci etc etc who became slavic only due to linguistic reasons i.e, they leant the slavic tongue.
I have never found where bosnians originated genetically, but they could be illyrian or thracian as far as I am concerned

Templar

18-05-12, 13:45

IS THERE ANY EVIDENCE THAT BOSNIANS CONSIDERED THEM SELVES AS LOCAL FROM ANTIQUITY?

It is irrelevant. I just said what they were NOT (and there is plenty of evidence for it), not what they were. Due to the rough and isolated terrain, there were likely several different "ethnic identities" within the region of modern Bosnia and Herzegovina. I am just trying to dispel the propaganda that they considered themselves Serb and Croat. Catholics in Bosnia didn't consider themselves Croatian until the 1800s rise of nationalism, neither did most Orthodox (except maybe a few at the Serbian border, and the descendants of Serb border-guards at the Northern border with Croatia).

Templar

18-05-12, 13:48

On the other hand, when one asks how we can distinguish Croats and Serbs in medieval times. That becomes more clear.

That is due to the less mountainous terrain of Serbia and Croatia. Both the Serb and Croat identity started as a small group of people, and then grew as they assimilated other tribes. In Bosnia this wasn't really achieved, although it was starting to. By the time of the Ottoman conquest, a distinct Bosnian identity did form, but it wasn't fully crystallized yet.

Yetos

18-05-12, 14:13

That is due to the less mountainous terrain of Serbia and Croatia. Both the Serb and Croat identity started as a small group of people, and then grew as they assimilated other tribes. In Bosnia this wasn't really achieved, although it was starting to. By the time of the Ottoman conquest, a distinct Bosnian identity did form, but it wasn't fully crystallized yet.

Exactly,
That is the point, I am pointing,
the difference among family, tribal and nation,
in antiquity Dorians and Ionians were different tribals, yet shame nation,
Bosnia as nation and not as families or tribes, before the Ottoman's are considered mainly as Serb and second as Croat nation, yet the unification movement that created after the change of religion in families, villages tribes create a new nation ID, so maybe Bosnians were not proto-Serb or proto-Croat who enter at 5-6th century AD but until Ottoman empire are considered part of Serb and Croat nations,

Templar

18-05-12, 14:26

Exactly,
That is the point, I am pointing,
the difference among family, tribal and nation,
in antiquity Dorians and Ionians were different tribals, yet shame nation,
Bosnia as nation and not as families or tribes, before the Ottoman's are considered mainly as Serb and second as Croat nation, yet the unification movement that created after the change of religion in families, villages tribes create a new nation ID, so maybe Bosnians were not proto-Serb or proto-Croat who enter at 5-6th century AD but until Ottoman empire are considered part of Serb and Croat nations

That wasn't my point. My point was that Serbia and Croatia both created nationhood, by assimilating people in their respective countries. In Bosnia, it was hard for any one group to dominate and assimilate others, due to the mountainous terrain and low population base. The Bosnian identity was already in existence before the Ottoman conquest, but it was a very new identity.

Stop claiming that they were Serb and Croat (they were especially not Serb, since the vast majority of the population were Catholic). Show evidence, or stop such propaganda. That would be like me saying that all Greeks are in reality Orthodox Albanians.

mihaitzateo

18-05-12, 18:01

No, this is completelly different.
Name Bozna is for sure derived from Slavic word: Bog (God).

BTW, Bosnia is Din-S. There's no Din-S bearers in Romania.
Most present group Y haplogrup in Romania is I2-a din south.
No one did tests in north-west Romania till now where that village,Bozna is located.
In north-east is about 40% I2-a din south.

mihaitzateo

18-05-12, 18:36

some say

A Gothic tribe Besi moved to the territory of todays Bosnia 80 years before Slavs; the tribe remained after the Slav arrival from the east. The name Bosnia originated from the name of this tribe; personal name Besim is one of the oldest Bosnian names.
http://www.ex-yupress.com/ljiljan/ljiljan1.html

That document is full of wrong information like:
"It is well known that Goths had blond hair. There aren't any blond Slavs. How come there are so many blond individuals among Bosniacs if they are Slavs?"
Original slavs are a group from north-east Europe,related to scandinavians.
Sure they were also mostly blue eyed and lots of them had light hair,with a lot with blonde hair.
Nazist "scientists" were not actually scientists,but pseudo-scientists since they said slavs are mixed with asians and "inferior race",but autosomal DNA tests proved that there is very few asian admixture in slavs from Rusia or Belarus or Poland.
(They have over 90% european DNA with Belarus over 95% european DNA on autosomal tests.)
And Poland on autosomal DNA tests have plenty of nordic DNA,same with Rusia or Belarus.Most DNA on autosomal DNA in Russia,Poland,Belarus is nordish DNA (do not remember exactly how much,like over 70% or so.)
On autosomal DNA population of south Sweden is clustering most close to population of Norway and after to population of Poland.Sweden and Norway have above 20% mediteranid DNA on autosomal DNA.
No ideea about autosomal DNA in Serbia,Bosnia,Montenegro but after how they look there is plenty of caucasian DNA here,on autosomal DNA I am referring.
In Romania and Bulgaria was about 25% or something like that caucasian DNA,on autosomal tests.

Eldritch

18-05-12, 19:01

That document is full of wrong information like:
"It is well known that Goths had blond hair. There aren't any blond Slavs. How come there are so many blond individuals among Bosniacs if they are Slavs?"
Original slavs are a group from north-east Europe,related to scandinavians.
Sure they were also mostly blue eyed and lots of them had light hair,with a lot with blonde hair.
Nazist "scientists" were not actually scientists,but pseudo-scientists since they said slavs are mixed with asians and "inferior race",but autosomal DNA tests proved that there is very few asian admixture in slavs from Rusia or Belarus or Poland.
(They have over 90% european DNA with Belarus over 95% european DNA on autosomal tests.)
And Poland on autosomal DNA tests have plenty of nordic DNA,same with Rusia or Belarus.Most DNA on autosomal DNA in Russia,Poland,Belarus is nordish DNA (do not remember exactly how much,like over 70% or so.)
On autosomal DNA population of south Sweden is clustering most close to population of Norway and after to population of Poland.Sweden and Norway have above 20% mediteranid DNA on autosomal DNA.
No ideea about autosomal DNA in Serbia,Bosnia,Montenegro but after how they look there is plenty of caucasian DNA here,on autosomal DNA I am referring.
In Romania and Bulgaria was about 25% or something like that caucasian DNA,on autosomal tests.
Romanians look closer to Bulgarians and Albanian than they do to Ukrainians.

Yetos

19-05-12, 02:44

That wasn't my point. My point was that Serbia and Croatia both created nationhood, by assimilating people in their respective countries. In Bosnia, it was hard for any one group to dominate and assimilate others, due to the mountainous terrain and low population base. The Bosnian identity was already in existence before the Ottoman conquest, but it was a very new identity.

Stop claiming that they were Serb and Croat (they were especially not Serb, since the vast majority of the population were Catholic). Show evidence, or stop such propaganda. That would be like me saying that all Greeks are in reality Orthodox Albanians.

The differences among Greeks and Albanians are more clear than in Bosnia,

I still don't understand you,
in one post you say that Bosnians are Slavic tribes, in another post you say that they were assimilated (meaning locals non Slavic)
maybe we must rewrite history and the known Slavic migrations name it Bosnian instead of Severi Serb Croat etc

for first time I hear that at Slavic migration in Balkans Bosnians came,
assimilation of neighborhood means that new comers assimilate the older one,
that means that Bosnians were not Slavic,

BUT

You are equating Balkans Slavs with Croats and Serbs. Minor Slavic tribes already existed in the Western Balkans before the arrival of the Serbs and Croats. Of-course these Slavs would find refuge in Bosnia where the terrain is very mountainous, during the Croat/Serb migrations.

As for the question of whether the inhabitants of Bosnia were really Croat or really Serb in 1180, it cannot be answered, for two reasons: first, because we lack evidence, and secondly, because the question lacks meaning. We can say that the majority of the Bosnian territory (in 1180) was probably occupied by Croats - or at least, by Slavs under Croat rule - in the seventh century; but that is a tribal label which has little or no meaning five centuries later. The Bosnians were generally closer to the Croats in their religious and political history; but to apply the modern notion of Croat identity (something constructed in recent centuries out of religion, history, and language) to anyone in this period would be an anachronism. All that one can sensibly say about the ethnic identity of the Bosnians is this: they were the Slavs who lived in Bosnia.

Better choose if Bosnians were Slavic or pre-Slavic population

it is impossible to claim Slavic population before the entrance of Serbs Croats in that area
since Severi are connected with Slavo-Bulgarian population Gorani etc
I have not heard of Bosnian entrance in Slavic migrations in Balkan, although I maybe am wrong, which I doubt until now.

Templar

19-05-12, 11:36

it is impossible to claim Slavic population before the entrance of Serbs Croats in that area

No it is not. It is well known that other smaller Slavic groups were already in the Balkans before the Serbs and Croats.

I still don't understand you,
in one post you say that Bosnians are Slavic tribes, in another post you say that they were assimilated (meaning locals non Slavic)
maybe we must rewrite history and the known Slavic migrations name it Bosnian instead of Severi Serb Croat etc

In Croatia, one big group (the Croats), conquered rival Slavs and the population of Illyricum . Over time, they assimilated them. Same thing in Serbia, except it was done by Serbs. In Bosnia, this didn't happen due to the rough and rugged terrain. It took several hundreds of additional years, for a common identity of the inhabitants to form. It was just about formed, right before the Ottoman invasions.

mihaitzateo

19-05-12, 13:32

Bessi were not a gothic tribe,but a thracian tribe:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bessi
The vlachs are being described as descendants of bessi and dacians in some writing.

Leviawan

19-05-12, 14:25

thats Great thanks

Dianatomia

20-05-12, 15:21

The Bosnian identity was already in existence before the Ottoman conquest, but it was a very new identity.

Bosnian identity? There was no such thing. There never was. Not even during the Ottoman empire. And why is it so important to proove a Bosnian identity was formed before the Ottoman conquests? It is there now. No one can say anything about it.

That would be like me saying that all Greeks are in reality Orthodox Albanians.

I can't see the connection. Are you suggesting that the difference between Slavs in medieval Bosnia and Serbia is the same as Byzantine Greeks and Albanians?

Well, this is exactly my point. There is - even in medieval times - a fine line between Greeks and Slavs, Greeks and Albanians, an even less clear line between Serbs and Croats. But the line between say Catholic and Orthodox Slavs in Bosnia and other Slavs is extremely vague. Therefore the burden is upon you to prove why we should consider that there was a distinct Bosnian identity. I find it hard to believe that an orthodox slav in Bosnia felt that he had more in common with a catholic Slav in bosnia than an orthodox slav in Serbia. In fact, if it wasn't for religion, it's highly likely that bosnia would have been split between Serbs and Croats after the fall of the Ottoman empire.

Templar

20-05-12, 18:40

I can't see the connection. Are you suggesting that the difference between Slavs in medieval Bosnia and Serbia is the same as Byzantine Greeks and Albanians?

The connection is that its wrong and offensive.

Bosnian identity? There was no such thing. There never was.

The medieval Bosnian kingdom was neither Serb nor Croat. What else was it if not Bosnian?

Templar

20-05-12, 18:46

"Originally, e.g. in Constantine Porphyrogennetos' De administrando imperio (tenth century) Bosnia was simply considered a part of Serbia. Later, although still treated as a part of Serbia, it assumes a somewhat different position, as witnessed by John Kinnamos in twelfth century, who notes that "the river Drina which takes its origin somewhat higher up and divides Bosnia from the rest of Serbia", but also that "Bosnia itself is not subjected to the Serbs' grand župan, but is a tribe which lives and ruled separately".

Note the "is a tribe which lives and ruled separately".

Gosh

20-05-12, 19:30

Most present group Y haplogrup in Romania is I2-a din south.
No one did tests in north-west Romania till now where that village,Bozna is located.
In north-east is about 40% I2-a din south.

Can you present any document which will show that "Most present group Y haplogrup in Romania is I2-a din south"?

Unfortunately, this forum became a place for misinforming and for cheap nationalistic satisfactions.

Gosh

20-05-12, 19:41

The medieval Bosnian kingdom was neither Serb nor Croat. What else was it if not Bosnian?

We have no any historical documents which can support your thesis.
Even more, we have a lot of documents from medieval Bosnian rulers where they mentioned Serbs and Croats (but mainly- Serbs).
Where we can read some document which says that in Bosnia lived some Bosnians (except in a geographical sense)? As far as I know there weren't such a medieval nation. It was a state named Bosnia but there were not an ethnic group with that name. There were Serbs or Croats, only. All known sources talks about that.

If you're living in Paris or in London, for example, you can't say that there exist some Parisian or London nation.

Results of genetic tests clearly shows that it is the same population shared between modern Bosnians, Serbs and Croats in the central part of former Yugoslavia.

MOESAN

20-05-12, 19:53

Note the "is a tribe which lives and ruled separately". without any reference to the political problems of nowaday It seams to me that the name 'Bosnia' appears very lately in history (XII°? XIII° century?) as country name - it is that kind of medieval territory arbitrary cut as many other in other territory - I red in Wikipedia that before it was vaguely included in a Croat territory - at that time there was no mention of muslim religion on all these lands - to come back to the genetics, it find interesting to study apart Croat Bosnians, self identified Bosniak Bosnians and Serb Bosnians and to compare them to Croatia Croats and Serbia Serbs (without Belgrad, a melting place) and to other surrounding regions, without take any other criteria in account - but even like that, I find that the differences of distributions between all these populations doesn't show evidence of completley different history - for Y DNA I should be tempted to say that Bosnia Bosnians have more southern ties (Y-E1b?) , southern BUT ancient in Balkans, and that Croats show more Central European Ties (Y-I2a1b) - I find sensible thinking that all these 2 Y-HGs are ancient enough in these lands, even if we can suppose that Y-I2a2a could have beeen reinforced by true slavic invasions or colonizations, associated these times with some new Y-R1a from the Steppes (more than one) - I add that for me typical Bosniaks don't show evidence of a heavy Turkic apport (the anatolian one, because the asiatic turkic apport seams very light in Turkey yet) - so to speak shortly I believe that central Bosniaks (mountainous districts) have a LITTLE BIT more of autochtonous population in their ancestry (I mean mesolithical-neolithical times, not in the paleolithical sense) - BUT I SEE NO CUT FRONTEER between all these West Balkans populations, only gradients... for ancient peoples, it appears that the most of linguists and archeologues fall in accord for to place the Illyrian territories in what we call today Bosnia-Hercegovina and Dalmatian Croatia (not Alabnia) - is that to say that the present day Bosniaks are the direct descendants of the previous Illyrians: hard to decide... surely they keep in their genome a lot of the genes shared by old Illyrians, difficult to be more precise and affirmative - I believe (lacking more precise AND EXTENSIVE SNPs surveys about the Y-I2a1b of ex-Yougoslavia that a big part of Y-I2a1b there is not so old as someones believe, and that not all of these brother SNPs are come there with medieval Slavs - the peaks of 'dinaric' types and Y-I2a1b in dalmatian Croats and bosnians Croats , so in western and coastal part put me to HAZARD (waiting well) that these I2a-s could have came down there from North (Central Europe) and not only East, an that Illyrians (in this precise sense of inhabitants of Illyria) could have been rich for I2a1a even if not exclusive of other HGs - - in every case history and past are over - and present day ethnic problems concern more future than past, more sentiments of appartenance than ancient ligneages - France can't go back to Gauls times, and the old moving limits and namings of Balkans can't be taken as references to build future (see Israel) - I resume: the most of inhabitants of Northwestern Balkans share more common ancestors than 'alien' ancestors

Templar

20-05-12, 20:29

We have no any historical documents which can support your thesis.

"In mid 12th Century, the chronicle Primorju (Maritima) from Duklja, in which White and Red Croatia are separated, are contrasted to Serbia or Zagorje (Surbia, Transmontana), composed of Bosnia and Raska.55 With such a prevalent sentiment, it's not surprising that even the Pope's decrees from late 12th and early 13th Century, using the information coming out of Dubrovnik, mistakenly identified Serbia with Bosnia (regnum Servillie, quod est Bosna).56 At the time when those Papal decrees were written, during the reigns of Ban Kulin and Ban Matej Ninoslav, Bosnia was not a part of Serbia, but memories of Bosnia's initial position vis a vis Serbia in the beginning of the 12th Century still abounded, especially in the cities of Upper Dalmatia (Bar, Dubrovnik). In accordance with such beliefs, and with the activities of the Dubrovnik public office, terms "Srblin" and "Vlah" had made their way into Bosnian public documents. That means that the term "Srblin" in Ninoslav's documents was not a reflection of the national consciousness in Bosnia, but was rather a late result of political influences of Serbia before the establishment of a Bosnian state. That is why we cannot take those terms as being accurate when describing the national consciousness of Bosnia in the first half of the 13th Century. Quite the opposite then, they are the proof of its lagging development in terms of national sentiment. It needs to be reiterated that the equality "Srblin" = an inhabitant of Bosnia appears in only three documents of Ban Matej Ninoslav and there is no mention of it in any of the later works and documents."

Eldritch

20-05-12, 21:04

without any reference to the political problems of nowaday It seams to me that the name 'Bosnia' appears very lately in history (XII°? XIII° century?) as country name - it is that kind of medieval territory arbitrary cut as many other in other territory - I red in Wikipedia that before it was vaguely included in a Croat territory - at that time there was no mention of muslim religion on all these lands - to come back to the genetics, it find interesting to study apart Croat Bosnians, self identified Bosniak Bosnians and Serb Bosnians and to compare them to Croatia Croats and Serbia Serbs (without Belgrad, a melting place) and to other surrounding regions, without take any other criteria in account - but even like that, I find that the differences of distributions between all these populations doesn't show evidence of completley different history - for Y DNA I should be tempted to say that Bosnia Bosnians have more southern ties (Y-E1b?) , southern BUT ancient in Balkans, and that Croats show more Central European Ties (Y-I2a1b) - I find sensible thinking that all these 2 Y-HGs are ancient enough in these lands, even if we can suppose that Y-I2a2a could have beeen reinforced by true slavic invasions or colonizations, associated these times with some new Y-R1a from the Steppes (more than one) - I add that for me typical Bosniaks don't show evidence of a heavy Turkic apport (the anatolian one, because the asiatic turkic apport seams very light in Turkey yet) - so to speak shortly I believe that central Bosniaks (mountainous districts) have a LITTLE BIT more of autochtonous population in their ancestry (I mean mesolithical-neolithical times, not in the paleolithical sense) - BUT I SEE NO CUT FRONTEER between all these West Balkans populations, only gradients... for ancient peoples, it appears that the most of linguists and archeologues fall in accord for to place the Illyrian territories in what we call today Bosnia-Hercegovina and Dalmatian Croatia (not Alabnia) - is that to say that the present day Bosniaks are the direct descendants of the previous Illyrians: hard to decide... surely they keep in their genome a lot of the genes shared by old Illyrians, difficult to be more precise and affirmative - I believe (lacking more precise AND EXTENSIVE SNPs surveys about the Y-I2a1b of ex-Yougoslavia that a big part of Y-I2a1b there is not so old as someones believe, and that not all of these brother SNPs are come there with medieval Slavs - the peaks of 'dinaric' types and Y-I2a1b in dalmatian Croats and bosnians Croats , so in western and coastal part put me to HAZARD (waiting well) that these I2a-s could have came down there from North (Central Europe) and not only East, an that Illyrians (in this precise sense of inhabitants of Illyria) could have been rich for I2a1a even if not exclusive of other HGs - - in every case history and past are over - and present day ethnic problems concern more future than past, more sentiments of appartenance than ancient ligneages - France can't go back to Gauls times, and the old moving limits and namings of Balkans can't be taken as references to build future (see Israel) - I resume: the most of inhabitants of Northwestern Balkans share more common ancestors than 'alien' ancestors
I really doubt Illyrians were heavy in I2a2

MOESAN

20-05-12, 21:55

I really doubt Illyrians were heavy in I2a2 it is your rights and I agree there is no proof - as I said, it is for me only a possibility, a guess, because Slovenians show less Y-I2a1a and are considered as more tied to Italics, Veneti (without take in account the celtic influence) - Balkans are so a meeting place if not a melting place!

Yetos

21-05-12, 01:23

Note the "is a tribe which lives and ruled separately".

Note after the fall of Constantinoupolis at 4rth Crusade there were 4 Greeks major and about 6-7 minor
their names were Epirus Nice Pontus Mustras
what that mean? they were not all 4 Greeks? No surely they were but they create different rulers,
Different rules and revolt does not create nationality

the thing you must notice is that local rulers were powerfull and always wanted the love of their people,
I do not deny that in Bosnia might not be a so central Serb or Croat feeling cause big rulers were away and local pay taxes to the Big ones,
but that does not change nationality, neither a movement of autonomy,
true nationality starts when a new culture is born

the best example I can give is Dusan,
his name in History is Dusan of Serbia but his capital was Skopjie which today is Makedonia, and far from the central heart of Serbia of today?
but what that means? should we name Dusan today Dusan of Makedonia?

many here do not deny that Bosnia is nationality today,
they deny that Bosnians were pre-Slavs locals as ethnicity, and that Bosnia had nationality identification before Ottoman empire,
for many here Bosnians are Serbs and Croats who create a nationality id much later than the arrival of S Slavs in Balkans

Tribal and local rulers are not nationality,
Monaco is independent, local rulers autonomy and tribal but is it a nation?

zanipolo

21-05-12, 09:16

I really doubt Illyrians were heavy in I2a2

check the link near the bottom, it states the Ydna of the "9 main illyrian tribes"

Can you present any document which will show that "Most present group Y haplogrup in Romania is I2-a din south"?

Unfortunately, this forum became a place for misinforming and for cheap nationalistic satisfactions.

Go search on inet,there are plenty documents who are saying this.
Even the table from here is giving I2-a din south as most present in Romania with about 26% or so.
On wikipedia there is also a map:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:HaplogroupI2.png
That is for I2-a1b HG (think that is both I2-a din south and I2-a din north).
There is a document made about Neamt county,but I am tired of linking it,is last time I link it:
http://edoc.ub.uni-muenchen.de/5868/1/Varzari_Alexander.pdf

Gosh

23-05-12, 00:36

"In mid 12th Century, the chronicle Primorju (Maritima) from Duklja, in which White and Red Croatia are separated, are contrasted to Serbia or Zagorje (Surbia, Transmontana), composed of Bosnia and Raska.55 With such a prevalent sentiment, it's not surprising that even the Pope's decrees from late 12th and early 13th Century, using the information coming out of Dubrovnik, mistakenly identified Serbia with Bosnia (regnum Servillie, quod est Bosna).56 At the time when those Papal decrees were written, during the reigns of Ban Kulin and Ban Matej Ninoslav, Bosnia was not a part of Serbia, but memories of Bosnia's initial position vis a vis Serbia in the beginning of the 12th Century still abounded, especially in the cities of Upper Dalmatia (Bar, Dubrovnik). In accordance with such beliefs, and with the activities of the Dubrovnik public office, terms "Srblin" and "Vlah" had made their way into Bosnian public documents. That means that the term "Srblin" in Ninoslav's documents was not a reflection of the national consciousness in Bosnia, but was rather a late result of political influences of Serbia before the establishment of a Bosnian state. That is why we cannot take those terms as being accurate when describing the national consciousness of Bosnia in the first half of the 13th Century. Quite the opposite then, they are the proof of its lagging development in terms of national sentiment. It needs to be reiterated that the equality "Srblin" = an inhabitant of Bosnia appears in only three documents of Ban Matej Ninoslav and there is no mention of it in any of the later works and documents."

I won't answer on all your post
to be short as much as I can (I'm not an expert for history of Balkans but I know many things about that).

I understand that you want to defend a prevalent point of view between Bosnians today (not Serbs or Croats from Bosnia). I'm not against that. But, there's a very obvious fact related with the whole population in that region. Bosnians, Serbs and southern Croats share mainly the same haplogroup. That haplogroup isn't Illyric (as some of your guys enjoy to write on forums) but it is even younger than I2a1 between (for example) Ukrainians (many guys who write about I2a1 simply don't understand this simple truth).

That means only one thing. People from almost 3/4 parts of Croatia, almost whole Bosnia and more than !/2 of Serbia and Montenegro share the same roots and have the same origins.

I agree that people in medieval Bosnia didn't have national consciousness because that thing didn't exist in that period of time. Modern European nationalism started in 18-th century. That people in 12th century simply had consciousness about their origins and about their relatives (or maybe, tribes), The only unsolved question is: were they ethnic Croats, Serbs or Bosnians?

Gosh

23-05-12, 00:52

Quite the opposite then, they are the proof of its lagging development in terms of national sentiment. It needs to be reiterated that the equality "Srblin" = an inhabitant of Bosnia appears in only three documents of Ban Matej Ninoslav and there is no mention of it in any of the later works and documents."

I don't intend to protect Serbs or someone else but this is not true. A few years ago I have read about that things and many sources talks about Serbs in Bosnia. Even the earliest written documents talks about Serbs in today's Bosnia (Einhard, Porphyrogenite etc...). According to them , they lived in Bosnia even before they settled today's Serbia.

Something as shown on this map:

5634

Templar

23-05-12, 10:01

That means only one thing. People from almost 3/4 parts of Croatia, almost whole Bosnia and more than !/2 of Serbia and Montenegro share the same roots and have the same origins.

There were Slavs in Bosnia BEFORE the arrival of the Serbs and Croats. This is well documented. They came with the Avars, and conquered the Balkans. Then the Byzantines asked the Serbs and Croats to defeat these Slavs inreturn for land. They never fully took Bosnia because of the terrain, though they influenced it over time (language-wise, and such).

Gosh

23-05-12, 13:16

Maybe they were there but this map clearly shows situation described by Byzantine Tzar Porphyrogenite.

As you can see, Bosnia was mainly part of Serbia of that time.

BTW if some Slavs arrived in Bosnia before Slavic migrations there weren't bearers of I2a1 Din-S, for sure. Only Din-N and R1a1.

As you know, I2a in Bosnia is predominantly Din-S (as in western Serbia and coastal Croatia).

Templar

23-05-12, 16:02

BTW if some Slavs arrived in Bosnia before Slavic migrations there weren't bearers of I2a1 Din-S, for sure. Only Din-N and R1a1.

You have no evidence of that, you are just randomly presuming that to fit the hypothetical scenario that you created.

As you can see, Bosnia was mainly part of Serbia of that time.

Just because a region (part of a region in this case) gets conquered, doesn't mean that the population is transformed. The English controlled Ireland for hundreds of years, did the Irish become English? No they didn't, but they were INFLUENCED by them. The same applies to Bosnia and its neighbors. Temporary Croatian and Serbian rule affected Bosnia, but not to the extent that the population began considering themselves Serb/Croat. They clearly called themselves "Bosnjanin".

zanipolo

23-05-12, 23:38

So what is the origin of Bosnians because the other south slavic people are a combination of turkic, thracian and iranic.

The stories I have been told
1- they where Illyrian
2- they where gothic
3 - they where scythians ( slavs)
4 - they where Thracian
5 - they where avars ( turkic)

Eldritch

23-05-12, 23:59

So what is the origin of Bosnians because the other south slavic people are a combination of turkic, thracian and iranic.

The stories I have been told
1- they where Illyrian
2- they where gothic
3 - they where scythians ( slavs)
4 - they where Thracian
5 - they where avars ( turkic)
They are clearly Slavs.
High I2a2 + R1a

zanipolo

24-05-12, 00:15

They are clearly Slavs.
High I2a2 + R1a

i was talking genetically and not linguistically .

The only true genetic slavs ( by slavic scholars ) are poles and ukraines

No Hg belongs to no race , so what this i2a2 + R1a

MOESAN

24-05-12, 00:48

I came back on my own affirmations (believings) - about Illyrians and Bosnia and others:
it appears that linguistically illyrian, when expelled a lot of other ancien languages mistaking the old surveys, would be very close to ancient albanian, thracian and dacian, and classed into satem I-Ean - the roman Illyricum was a big bag where were put by the Roman Empire a lot of different peoples and cultures (the hesitations about the classification of language can be explained by this fact) - apparently the very place of true Illyrians would have been between South Dalmatia, South Bosnia and grecian Epire about the beginning of our era -I have no personal thought because here I'm incompetent to decide anything - but if that is true, we can think they would have had a lot of Y-E1b among them (look at the Kossovars) -
COON thought (I report his thoughts) the most of the sepultures found in Bosnia date since the Iron Age only -the 'dinaric' type present in these tombs (associated with some 'corded' and other few types) came from North, said he - from Austria or South Germany, they have broader jaws than the 'dinaric' type of present day Albania (we can imagine that the prevalent 'dinaroid' trait, the occiput flattening with brachycephaly, masked some different crossings between North and South 'dinarics') - so HE imagined a colonization from North, very recent - Celts only? I doubt. Something else? I don't know but surely a reinforcement of Y-I2a1b and perhaps some Y-I2a2 and Y-R1b (U152?)... these people didn't disappear before Slavs "invasions" but only mixed with these Slavs and the "autochtonous" Y-E1b - the narrowing of the jaws in South could be the result of crossings with kinds of dolichocephalic 'mediterraneans' producing the south dinaric type because of distinct dominent features in the crossings (skull # face)?

Dianatomia

24-05-12, 09:49

The connection is that its wrong and offensive.

The medieval Bosnian kingdom was neither Serb nor Croat. What else was it if not Bosnian?

We can analyse if something is wrong or not, but if it is offensive is rather irrelevant.

A Bosnian Kingdom doesn't constitute a Bosnian Identity. The amount of kingdoms which had nothing to do with seperate identities are too much to list. Moreover, it was a very short lived kingdom.

Gosh

24-05-12, 09:53

You have no evidence of that, you are just randomly presuming that to fit the hypothetical scenario that you created.

Just because a region (part of a region in this case) gets conquered, doesn't mean that the population is transformed. The English controlled Ireland for hundreds of years, did the Irish become English? No they didn't, but they were INFLUENCED by them. The same applies to Bosnia and its neighbors. Temporary Croatian and Serbian rule affected Bosnia, but not to the extent that the population began considering themselves Serb/Croat. They clearly called themselves "Bosnjanin".

Yes, I have no evidence of that and I'm only presuming everything, but your words are unbeatable historical truths. A little bit funny, I think.

Your writings is much more related with contemporary politics than with historical facts. I know that kind of people which are ready to believe in anything which can make them happy.

The same thing as Slavic Macedonians and their belief that they are sons of Alexander the Great. They built some monuments to him and his father. Does it means that it is a truth? :)

For Macedonians under strong political influence it is nothing but truth, but for the rest of world it is just a good joke. :)

Gosh

24-05-12, 10:16

We can analyse if something is wrong or not, but if it is offensive is rather irrelevant.

A Bosnian Kingdom doesn't constitute a Bosnian Identity. The amount of kingdoms which had nothing to do with seperate identities are too much to list. Moreover, it was a very short lived kingdom.

The worst thing in that story that today's supporters of medieval christian Bosnian kingdom are those who 150 years ago proudly presented themselves as Turks. Even today, many of Slavic Muslims in former Yugoslavia feels Turkey very close to them hearth. The same Turkey which destroyed medieval christian Bosnian kingdom. I simply can't understand that kind of pervert dichotomy at all...

I'm sure that some things presented here by Templar can also be offensive for Bosnian Croats/Serbs but it isn't important for him. The only offensive thing for them is that what he feels offensive. If someone else have the same feeling, he will explain that he only tries to expose some historical facts :)

Templar

24-05-12, 12:00

We can analyse if something is wrong or not, but if it is offensive is rather irrelevant.

It is offensive because it is based on fascist propaganda, whose use led to justification of genocide.

Templar

24-05-12, 12:03

The worst thing in that story that today's supporters of medieval christian Bosnian kingdom are those who 150 years ago proudly presented themselves as Turks. Even today, many of Slavic Muslims in former Yugoslavia feels Turkey very close to them hearth. The same Turkey which destroyed medieval christian Bosnian kingdom. I simply can't understand that kind of pervert dichotomy at all...

Actually some Bosnians welcomed them in for political/military support. A majority of Bosnian noblemen converted to Islam and used it to their advantage. Many ended up at the highest positions of power of the most powerful empire in the world (at that time). Religion is just a tool, only the weak-minded don't know this.

Templar

24-05-12, 12:06

I'm sure that some things presented here by Templar can also be offensive for Bosnian Croats/Serbs but it isn't important for him. The only offensive thing for them is that what he feels offensive. If someone else have the same feeling, he will explain that he only tries to expose some historical facts :)

They did not consider themselves Croat/Serb before the 1800s, what part of that don't you understand? Seriously read the book: Bosnia: A Short History

Gosh

24-05-12, 20:44

They did not consider themselves Croat/Serb before the 1800s, what part of that don't you understand? Seriously read the book: Bosnia: A Short History

Yes..... you'd better recommend something like Mein Kampf ))))

You'd have to read some books from XV-XVIII century from Italian and Austrian sources which concisely talks about that topic. Or even more, all documents from the beginning of written documents about south Slavs.

He talks only about Turks and Serbs in medieval Bosnia (this is an old-german transcription).

Unfortunately, you're just another nationalistic tr-oll. Eupedia forum has a very poor level in the means of scientific knowledge but it doesn't lacks from nationalistic fairy-tales.

Templar

24-05-12, 20:53

Yes..... you'd better recommend something like Mein Kampf

What? It is a well-researched and unbiased book, written by a British historian. You have serious issues.

He talks only about Turks and Serbs in medieval Bosnia (this is an old-german transcription).

A majority of the population were Catholics who converted to Islam, and the second largest group were Serbs brought by the Turks to guard to Northern border. You lack any credibility to write about this topic.

Unfortunately, you're just another nationalistic tr-oll. Eupedia forum has a very poor level in the means of scientific knowledge but it doesn't lacks from nationalistic fairy-tales.

No, I just think you are extremely biased, and ignorant. You pick and choose information, without looking at the big picture.

What? It is a well-researched and unbiased book, written by a British historian. You have serious issues.

As the first, Noel Malcom isn't an historian

As the second, above mentioned book (and the rest of his books) is well known as politically driven work.

As the 3rd, If a source states that there lived Serbs and Turks it is unnecessary to give any kind of 3rd party explanations because the same author in that work cites Serbian language as dominant in medieval Bosnia.

It would be silly that medieval Bosnians speak Serbian language but they aren't Serbs.

I respect your measures, sparkey. As you can see, it was a joke. I'm trying to speak with the language of facts but if someone simply skips historical sources and continue with its own song, how we can talk about normal discussion?

Templar

25-05-12, 14:22

As the first, Noel Malcom isn't an historian

"Noel Malcolm is one of the best known historians and writers on Kosovo" he clearly IS a historian.

As the second, above mentioned book (and the rest of his books) is well known as politically driven work.

Maybe that is well known by fascist right-wingers? You have to be careful not to trust everything you read on the internet. Always look at the sources. There are many very biased nationalistic/racist websites that interpret things without truly looking at the facts. This website is very good though, you will find mostly good and enlightened information.

As you can see, it was a joke. I'm trying to speak with the language of facts but if someone simply skips historical sources and continue with its own song, how we can talk about normal discussion?

Dude, I gave you plenty of historical sources, and you started the insults. I merely reflected them back at you. Just because you can't prove your argument, doesn't mean you should stoop down to the level of verbally attacking your opponent. I am just trying to fight ultra-nationalist propaganda: Milosevic's "Greater Serbia" fantasies and such.

As the 3rd, If a source states that there lived Serbs and Turks it is unnecessary to give any kind of 3rd party explanations because the same author in that work cites Serbian language as dominant in medieval Bosnia.

It would be silly that medieval Bosnians speak Serbian language but they aren't Serbs.

Ancient and Medieval sources are often not 100% reliable, you must look at the context and read between the lines. Think of how Romans would often lump many un-related groups of people into one category. Generalization was very common, and most people were very uneducated. Serbians were the biggest Slavic group in the Balkans, therefore they were the most famous. Also many Serbs served as troops for the Austrians, so they were quite well-known. Austrian knowledge of Bosnia would have been very limited, due to Bosnia's culture being supplanted by Ottoman/Turk culture. Muslim Bosnians even began calling themselves Turks, even if they had no admixture.

MOESAN

25-05-12, 21:28

"Noel Malcolm is one of the best known historians and writers on Kosovo" he clearly IS a historian.

Maybe that is well known by fascist right-wingers? You have to be careful not to trust everything you read on the internet. Always look at the sources. There are many very biased nationalistic/racist websites that interpret things without truly looking at the facts. This website is very good though, you will find mostly good and enlightened information.

Ancient and Medieval sources are often not 100% reliable, you must look at the context and read between the lines. Think of how Romans would often lump many un-related groups of people into one category. Generalization was very common, and most people were very uneducated. Serbians were the biggest Slavic group in the Balkans, therefore they were the most famous. Also many Serbs served as troops for the Austrians, so they were quite well-known. Austrian knowledge of Bosnia would have been very limited, due to Bosnia's culture being supplanted by Ottoman/Turk culture. Muslim Bosnians even began calling themselves Turks, even if they had no admixture.

and what tell us linguistics ? If there was an ancient enough Bosnian identity(and the corresponding center of life)even slavized as the surrounding populations it would be a kind of linguistic (dialectal) nucleus - have we that for bosniandialects or only a range of isoglosses between western Croatia and Serbia - it is not a total argument but it could help to understand (I have no will to fall down into modern considerations: I respect every ethnic feeling and I know how states frontiers do not respect too often the ethnic groupings: some centuries are enough to legitimate ethnic identities, or to erase them)

Gosh

25-05-12, 22:39

Noel Malcolm is one of the best known historians and writers on Kosovo" he clearly IS a historian.

False. Noel Malcom is by his profession mainly journalist. He isn't a professional historian although he has that kind of education. Your argument that he is "the best known historian on Kosovo" is strong enough to explain everything to open-minded people. Imagine a similar situation where I say: "he is the best known historian in Abkhazia and Ossetia". It is obvious that that kind of popularity is nothing but politics. BTW Kosovo isn't a member of UN.

Maybe that is well known by fascist right-wingers? You have to be careful not to trust everything you read on the internet. Always look at the sources. There are many very biased nationalistic/racist websites that interpret things without truly looking at the facts. This website is very good though, you will find mostly good and enlightened informatio

All Serbian historians are right-wings? right?
All anti-serbian historians are symbols of peace and prosperity?

Well, here's a work of "Serbian right-wing historian" which explain everything about Mr. Malcom and his work.

http://www.kosovo.net/nmalk.html

Dude, I gave you plenty of historical sources, and you started the insults. I merely reflected them back at you. Just because you can't prove your argument, doesn't mean you should stoop down to the level of verbally attacking your opponent. I am just trying to fight ultra-nationalist propaganda: Milosevic's "Greater Serbia" fantasies and such.

it is a really interesting way to fight ultra-nationalist propaganda with another ultra-nationalist propaganda.

Ancient and Medieval sources are often not 100% reliable, you must look at the context and read between the lines. Think of how Romans would often lump many un-related groups of people into one category. Generalization was very common, and most people were very uneducated. Serbians were the biggest Slavic group in the Balkans, therefore they were the most famous. Also many Serbs served as troops for the Austrians, so they were quite well-known. Austrian knowledge of Bosnia would have been very limited, due to Bosnia's culture being supplanted by Ottoman/Turk culture. Muslim Bosnians even began calling themselves Turks, even if they had no admixture.

Medieval sources aren't 100% reliable when they are talking about your believes and they are absolute true in the opposite case. O.K. I know that.....

Therefore, we'll move forward at the beginning of XX century to read some facts from Catholic Encyclopedia

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02694a.htm

The most interesting things are those which you'll never read in books of politically driven authors:

Population

According to the census of 22 April 1895, Bosnia has 1,361,868 inhabitants and Herzegovina 229,168, giving a total population of 1,591,036. The number of persons (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11726a.htm) to the square mile is small (about 80), less than that in any of the other Austrian crown provinces excepting Salzburg (about 70). This average does not vary much in the six districts (five in Bosnia, one in Herzegovina). The number of persons (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11726a.htm) to the square mile in these districts is as follows: Doljna Tuzla, 106; Banjaluka, 96; Bihac, 91; Serajevo, 73, Mostar (Herzegovina), 65, Travnik, 62. There are 5,388 settlements, of which only 11 have more than 5,000 inhabitants, while 4,689 contain less 500 persons (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11726a.htm). Excluding some 30,000 Albanians living in the south-east, the Jews (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08399a.htm) who emigrated (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10291a.htm) in earlier times from Spain (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14169b.htm), a few Osmanli Turks (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15097a.htm), the merchants, officials. and Austrian troops, the rest of the population (about 98 per cent) belong to the southern Slavonic people, the Serbs. Although one in race, the people form in religious beliefs (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02408b.htm) three sharply separated divisions: the Mohammedans (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10424a.htm), about 550,000 persons (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11726a.htm) (35 per cent), Greek Schismatics, about 674,000 persons (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11726a.htm) (43 per cent), and Catholics (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03449a.htm), about 334,000 persons (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11726a.htm) (21.3 per cent). The last mentioned are chiefly peasants. The Mohammedans (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10424a.htm) form the mass of the population in the region called the Krajina in the north-west, in the district of Serajevo (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13725a.htm) and in the south-eastern part of the territory; the Greek Schismatics preponderate in the district of Banjaluka (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02252a.htm). The Catholics (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03449a.htm) of the Latin Rite (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09022a.htm) exceed the other two denominations (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13674a.htm) only in the district of Travnik and in northern Herzegovina. There are in addition 8,000 Jews (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08399a.htm) and 4,000 Protestants (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12495a.htm). Divided according to occupation 85 per cent of the population are farmers or wine-cultivators (1,385,291). There are 5,833 large estates, the owners of which are chiefly Mohammedans (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10424a.htm), 88,970 cultivators of land not their own (kmeten), 88,867 free peasants who own the land they till, and 22,625 peasants who own farming-land and also cultivate the land of others. The population of the towns is small.

Whatta crazy encyclopedia... they states that: "the rest of the population (about 98 per cent) belong to the southern Slavonic people, the Serbs. Although one in race, the people form in religious beliefs (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02408b.htm) three sharply separated divisions: the Mohammedans (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10424a.htm), about 550,000 persons (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11726a.htm) (35 per cent), Greek Schismatics, about 674,000 persons (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11726a.htm) (43 per cent), and Catholics (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03449a.htm), about 334,000 persons (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11726a.htm) (21.3 per cent)"

I've expected Milosevich among right-wing Serbian authors at the bottom but I was surprised to see that there's no any Serb in the list of references.

I'm impatient to hear explanation how this source is also not 100% reliable ))))))

It is easy to check that all of these data shown here are not false. In the period of the beginning of XX century there were 8% more orthodox citizens in Bosnia than Muslims. After two WW and demographic explosion of Muslim population we today have a completely opposite picture there.

Smart people will understand everything without my comments.

zanipolo

26-05-12, 03:25

according to John Fine's book
bosnia was recognised as a independent state in 1167 after the battle of Zemun. Hum ( formerly Zahumlje and now hercegovina) was seperated from bosnia and was mostly Romanian Vlachs. Hum was ruled by the serbians.

in 1192 the hungarian king succeded in persuading the pope to split bosnia away from croatia in dynastic ruling and also in the juristiction of croation bishops.

In summary the Bosnians where a mix of croats, avars and huns

Gosh

26-05-12, 13:42

according to John Fine's book
bosnia was recognised as a independent state in 1167 after the battle of Zemun. Hum ( formerly Zahumlje and now hercegovina) was seperated from bosnia and was mostly Romanian Vlachs. Hum was ruled by the serbians.

It is true that Bosnia got some kind of independence in 1167 but it was much smaller than modern Bosnia. Does it means that if some ruler establish independence on some territory automatically change ethnic origins of population?

I'll start to believe that Bosnia was settled with Romanian Vlachs when you show me ANY y-chromosome data which will show presence of Din-S in Romania (and even among Vlachs in Serbia). All of them are Din-N and that's the argument which beats your theory.

The highest percentage of Din-S is exactly in old Helmus which was ruled by the Serbs (not Serbians, there's a big difference in that). In today's Bosnia, Din-S is much-much more presented than Din-N.

in 1192 the hungarian king succeded in persuading the pope to split bosnia away from croatia in dynastic ruling and also in the juristiction of croation bishops.

This is far away from truth... They weren't Croatian Bishops but Catholic one. In the past, there were much Serbs- Catholics which are turned into Croats not so many years ago.

In summary the Bosnians where a mix of croats, avars and huns

Yes...... and this is very easy to check by genetics. Avars, old Croats and Huns are well known as ethnic groups with a high amount of Din-S. No Serbs there at all.
I appreciate this kind of conclusions very much.

Templar

26-05-12, 19:30

According to the census of 22 April 1895

Exactly, that was after a huge amount of Bosniaks migrated out of Bosnia. Muslims in other former parts of the Ottoman empire were being forcefully converted and also killed, they fled to avoid such a fate.

Gosh

26-05-12, 20:30

Exactly, that was after a huge amount of Bosniaks migrated out of Bosnia. Muslims in other former parts of the Ottoman empire were being forcefully converted and also killed, they fled to avoid such a fate.

Isn't that another proof that they felt themselves as Turks?
Who and where was killed in former Yugoslavia?

BTW, you skipped the main thing. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, 98% of population in Bosnia were Serbs. There's no Bosnians, there's no Croats.... strange, isn't it? And that's thing which isn't hard to check on many maps from XIX century.

It is completely different from your writings here.

zanipolo

26-05-12, 20:33

It is true that Bosnia got some kind of independence in 1167 but it was much smaller than modern Bosnia. Does it means that if some ruler establish independence on some territory automatically change ethnic origins of population?

I'll start to believe that Bosnia was settled with Romanian Vlachs when you show me ANY y-chromosome data which will show presence of Din-S in Romania (and even among Vlachs in Serbia). All of them are Din-N and that's the argument which beats your theory.

The highest percentage of Din-S is exactly in old Helmus which was ruled by the Serbs (not Serbians, there's a big difference in that). In today's Bosnia, Din-S is much-much more presented than Din-N.

This is far away from truth... They weren't Croatian Bishops but Catholic one. In the past, there were much Serbs- Catholics which are turned into Croats not so many years ago.

Yes...... and this is very easy to check by genetics. Avars, old Croats and Huns are well known as ethnic groups with a high amount of Din-S. No Serbs there at all.
I appreciate this kind of conclusions very much.

you did not read my post properly. The vlachs only settled in HUM and not bosnia.
The diocese was split from catholic croatian lands to catholic bosnian lands

Gosh

26-05-12, 22:46

you did not read my post properly. The vlachs only settled in HUM and not bosnia.
The diocese was split from catholic croatian lands to catholic bosnian lands

Your HUM is ancient Helmus, right?
That's the region with a very high level of I2a1b1b, right?

zanipolo

27-05-12, 00:19

Your HUM is ancient Helmus, right?
That's the region with a very high level of I2a1b1b, right?

Herzegovina was called HUM until 1462

Gosh

27-05-12, 12:24

Herzegovina was called HUM until 1462

As far as I know, before arrival of Slavs it was Helmus.

I've asked you a question and you didn't answer on that.

I'll repeat: is that the region with the highest level of I2a1-Din-S in the world?

zanipolo

27-05-12, 13:10

As far as I know, before arrival of Slavs it was Helmus.

I've asked you a question and you didn't answer on that.

I'll repeat: is that the region with the highest level of I2a1-Din-S in the world?

unsure on I2a1-din-S, but HUM was inlands, Zeta was towards the coast and bocce da cattaro was on the sea. cattaro and zeta became montenegro.
The highest according to 2007 results ( slavic and austrian studies) of that hg was the Autariates (illyrian tribe) with 63.8%. the lived in south bosnia and montenegro ( today's bordes) , so it would be Hum or what you call Helmus ( never heard of it).

below is the original hum
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zachlumia (http://books.google.com.au/books?id=LvVbRrH1QBgC&pg=PA18&dq=hum+bosnia&hl=en&sa=X&ei=-AvCT83ME7CaiAei_-yMCg&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=hum%20bosnia&f=false)

Gosh

27-05-12, 21:04

unsure on I2a1-din-S, but HUM was inlands, Zeta was towards the coast and bocce da cattaro was on the sea. cattaro and zeta became montenegro.
The highest according to 2007 results ( slavic and austrian studies) of that hg was the Autariates (illyrian tribe) with 63.8%. the lived in south bosnia and montenegro ( today's bordes) , so it would be Hum or what you call Helmus ( never heard of it).

below is the original hum
(http://books.google.com.au/books?id=LvVbRrH1QBgC&pg=PA18&dq=hum+bosnia&hl=en&sa=X&ei=-AvCT83ME7CaiAei_-yMCg&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=hum%20bosnia&f=false)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zachlumia

In Russian "hill" = halm, that's the same as helm. I'm not sure why author from Wiki speaks about some Vlachs but not about Slavs.

You're unsure about the most important thing which we discuss here. I2a1-Din-S are younger branch of Din tree, It doesn't exists in today's Romania (and not only Romania but in all Slavs except central part of southern Slavs).

How someone can talk about genetics avoiding to understand this fact?

Yetos

27-05-12, 21:47

In Russian "hill" = halm, that's the same as helm. I'm not sure why author from Wiki speaks about some Vlachs but not about Slavs.

You're unsure about the most important thing which we discuss here. I2a1-Din-S are younger branch of Din tree, It doesn't exists in today's Romania (and not only Romania but in all Slavs except central part of southern Slavs).

How someone can talk about genetics avoiding to understand this fact?

Helmus exist also in Greek as Χελμος Ηelmos and does not mean hill but Helmet or a kind of shell protection, Greek word Κελυφος καλυμα virb καλυπτω

the word is not Greek but exist as name for one mountain
it is considered as either south Slavic or as Thracian comparing Zelm = Helm in Dacian language

case of Germanic or Celtic is not mentioned in Lexicons of Greek geography toponyms

a strange notice is that the top of the mountain is named Οστρακια which in Greek means turtle-Shell
the ancient Greek name of the mountain is Αροανια Aroania and the modern is Chelmos Χελμος notice that Greek letter x officially is written as ch while it sounds as h in 'how'

In Russian "hill" = halm, that's the same as helm. I'm not sure why author from Wiki speaks about some Vlachs but not about Slavs.

please link reference to this helmus

You're unsure about the most important thing which we discuss here. I2a1-Din-S are younger branch of Din tree, It doesn't exists in today's Romania (and not only Romania but in all Slavs except central part of southern Slavs).

How someone can talk about genetics avoiding to understand this fact?

I gave you the genetics, .........people who speak slav are not always slavic and should never be treated as slavs, because this distorts history.

again for you....The highest I2a1-Din-s according to 2007 results ( slavic and austrian studies) of ancient HG was the Autariates (illyrian tribe) with 63.8%. the lived in south bosnia and montenegro ( today's bordes). They originated further north below the danube, but where pushed southward by the advancing celts

Gosh

28-05-12, 12:01

Helmus exist also in Greek as Χελμος Ηelmos and does not mean hill but Helmet or a kind of shell protection, Greek word Κελυφος καλυμα virb καλυπτω

the word is not Greek but exist as name for one mountain
it is considered as either south Slavic or as Thracian comparing Zelm = Helm in Dacian language

case of Germanic or Celtic is not mentioned in Lexicons of Greek geography toponyms

a strange notice is that the top of the mountain is named Οστρακια which in Greek means turtle-Shell
the ancient Greek name of the mountain is Αροανια Aroania and the modern is Chelmos Χελμος notice that Greek letter x officially is written as ch while it sounds as h in 'how'

It is always a lot of problems with old Greek transcriptions and various names.

Not so many people knows that name Balkan exists only for 200 years. Before of that Balkans were Haemus, Helmus etc...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haemus_Mons

In any case, word is IE and probably given by Thracians.

Gosh

28-05-12, 12:13

please link reference to this helmus

I did that in previous post

I gave you the genetics, .........people who speak slav are not always slavic and should never be treated as slavs, because this distorts history.

That's for sure. Not only Slavs but all modern nations. Hungarians are (for example) much more Slavs than (let's say) Bulgarians. Romanians are 1/2 Slavs. Even modern Albanians are about 20-25% Slavs (by origins, of course).

again for you....The highest I2a1-Din-s according to 2007 results ( slavic and austrian studies) of ancient HG was the Autariates (illyrian tribe) with 63.8%. the lived in south bosnia and montenegro ( today's bordes). They originated further north below the danube, but where pushed southward by the advancing celts

You're continuing to make the same mistake all this time. Fact that some Illyrian tribe lived on some place doesn't means that modern population belongs to descendants of that tribe.

According to Kenneth Nortdvedt, haplogroup I2a1b-Din is "born" about 2500 ago in central Europe. Today we can observe remains of I2a1-Din-S in the region of southern Poland and Eastern Germany. That's the same place described by historians as place where ancient Croats and Serbs lived before they migration to the south.

Gosh

28-05-12, 12:32

OMG..... I didn't read this topic from the begining.

PROUD TO BE BOSNIAN FOR 25.000 YEARS.

We have proof, fact and thruth on our side.

Bosnia-Herzegovina is one country and one poeple and we will forever live.

Goodbye Serbsko-Hrvatska propaganda
1850-1995

BOSONA LIVES FOREVER

PROUD TO BE BOSNIAN FOR 25.000﻿ YEARS

The thruth is﻿ on our side.

Bosnians are Illyrians they have 50% of I2a (Illyrian)
and the Name Bosnia is real ancient Illyrian Name BOSONA.

The Propaganda of our Neighbourgs is Fall,
we are not Serbs and not Croats we are Bosnians
and the Bosnian christians are Bosnians too but they
are victims of the centauryold Propaganda of our Neighbourgs
and the DNA Tests have shown that all Bosnians are very Similar
and more similar than with croatia or Serbia.

The Truth will EVER Win

This is a nice example which shows what a flaming nationalistic propaganda can do from somebody.

Eupedia is fulfilled with the articles of this kind. And the most interesting thing, writers aren't immediately banned.

Templar

28-05-12, 12:52

This is a nice example which shows what a flaming nationalistic propaganda can do from somebody.

Maybe that person's info was propaganda, but mine wasn't. My claim is very moderate and fair: Medieval Bosnians did not consider themselves Croat and Serb.

zanipolo

28-05-12, 13:16

You're continuing to make the same mistake all this time. Fact that some Illyrian tribe lived on some place doesn't means that modern population belongs to descendants of that tribe.

According to Kenneth Nortdvedt, haplogroup I2a1b-Din is "born" about 2500 ago in central Europe. Today we can observe remains of I2a1-Din-S in the region of southern Poland and Eastern Germany. That's the same place described by historians as place where ancient Croats and Serbs lived before they migration to the south.

switzerland, north italy, tyrol, austria, bavaria etc etc are all central europe .............i do not know what you define central europe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Europe
depends who you talk to

Gosh

28-05-12, 16:08

They are, but... where's Din-S there?!?

Diurpaneus

29-05-12, 15:32

Romanians are 1/2 Slavs

Doc,wait a minute.
I don't deny Slavic ancestry for Romanians.
Slavs setlled in Romania.
And i don't mind;on the contrary.
BUT, PLEASE!!!!! 50% , THIS IS WAY OUT OF LINE!

Even supposing I2a1b Din as a whole is Slavic only.
Autosomal DNA is by far a much more consistent analysis.
And there's a BIG DIFFERENCE between Romanians and Northern Slavs.
Romanians are close to Serbs,Bulgarians,Albanians and Macedonians.
But that's because of a common Thracian(including Dacians and Getae) heritage.

True ,Romanian has a lot of Slavic(Bulgarian) borrowings due to Bulgarian Empire.
Slavic/Bulgarian was used in the Orthodox liturgy and as a chancelerry language .
But, ROMANIAN IS LATIN SPOKEN BY THE THRACIANS.

I wrote quite a long answer on your post but it unfortunately disappeared. I don't intend to write them again.

In short, when I said "Slavic", that means I2a1+R1a.

Eldritch

28-11-12, 15:27

check the link near the bottom, it states the Ydna of the "9 main illyrian tribes"

http://www.anthroinsula.org/resources/Iliri-english%20text%20version.pdf
Obviously i can't take this seriously, they can measure modern populations and then reach some imaginary results.
The only way to know which was main marker among Illyrians is to test bones plus I2a1b has expanded from Moldova.

LeBrok

28-11-12, 18:12

I wrote quite a long answer on your post but it unfortunately disappeared. That happened to me many times when using Internet Explorer with windows 7. Switch to Google Chrome, works great every time.

Eldritch

29-05-13, 15:12

hey, I've been doing some research but I can't find how Bosnians look like. Sorry for my ignorance people, but I'd really like to know and I hope you can help me out. Just physical appearance in general, and it would also be good if you told me about Croatians and Serbians appearance too. thanks! :) (and sorry for my english)
Overwhelmingly brunet people.. with a fair share of light eyes

Here it is a chapter from Coon:

Bosnia consists of the six provinces, Bihac, Banjaluka, Tuzla, Travnik, Sarajevo, and Mostar, which lie between western Croatia, Dalmatia, Montenegro, and the Slavonian plain. The southernmost province, Mostar, includes, the territory known as Herzegovina, which lies nearest to Montenegro. The Bosnians serve racially as an approach to the nucleus of Dinaric giantism in Montenegro.Tuzla, in the northeast, has a mean stature of 171 cm.; Bihac and Banjaluca, in the northwest, of 172 cm.; in Travnik and parts of Mostar it rises to 173 cm., in Sarajevo to 174 cm., and in Herzegovina to 175-176 cm., approaching the Montenegrin level. The mean cephalic index of the Bosnians is over 85; this varies by religions, with the Catholics the most brachycephalic (86), and the Moslems the least (84). The Catholics are likewise the tallest and the lightest skinned; being the oldest population in the region in point of conversion, and the least affected by outside influences, the Catholic element preserves both a pre-Slavicand a pre-Turkish racial configuration more completely than do the partisans of Orthodoxy or Islam.
In hair and eye color the Bosnians are intermediate between Croatians and Serbs; they are darkest in the northeast, and fairest in the regions nearest Montenegro. Since they form but an extension of the Montenegrin nucleus, it will suffice here to point out their near identity with the inhabitants of that former kingdom, and to leave a detailed description for the latter.

albanopolis

29-05-13, 20:17

I did that in previous post

That's for sure. Not only Slavs but all modern nations. Hungarians are (for example) much more Slavs than (let's say) Bulgarians. Romanians are 1/2 Slavs. Even modern Albanians are about 20-25% Slavs (by origins, of course).

You're continuing to make the same mistake all this time. Fact that some Illyrian tribe lived on some place doesn't means that modern population belongs to descendants of that tribe.

According to Kenneth Nortdvedt, haplogroup I2a1b-Din is "born" about 2500 ago in central Europe. Today we can observe remains of I2a1-Din-S in the region of southern Poland and Eastern Germany. That's the same place described by historians as place where ancient Croats and Serbs lived before they migration to the south.
Southern Albanians appear to be around 15% Slavic. Albanians in Macedonia, Kosovo, North Albania about 2%. I am taking as an etalon of being slavic the haplogrouo I2a. R1a does not appear to be exclusively slavic since Germans, Norway hace a large size of R1a.

kamani

29-05-13, 21:18

Southern Albanians appear to be around 15% Slavic.

That's what I thought too for a while, but then I discovered that most of the 15% I2a in southern Albanians is I2a2b, a rare nordic/celtic Hg. So it seems they're not much slavic, but rather a bit "germanic". The devil is in the details...

Eldritch

29-05-13, 21:51

That's what I thought too for a while, but then I discovered that most of the 15% I2a in southern Albanians is I2a2b, a rare nordic/celtic Hg. So it seems they're not much slavic, but rather a bit "germanic". The devil is in the details...

Are you sure about this?

kamani

29-05-13, 22:21

Are you sure about this?

99% sure, but we need a published study for proof. The few published studies for south-albania are decieving because they say only I2a without going into subclades. I started looking at online maps of people who have shared their Haplogroup, and there is a strong I2a2b area between south-Albania/Macedonia/Northern Greece.

Eldritch

30-05-13, 00:24

99% sure, but we need a published study for proof. The few published studies for south-albania are decieving because they say only I2a without going into subclades. I started looking at online maps of people who have shared their Haplogroup, and there is a strong I2a2b area between south-Albania/Macedonia/Northern Greece.
Post those maps.

kamani

30-05-13, 01:54

Post those maps.
The stuff about I2a2b is confidential information from another site but here is a starter from wikipedia that not all Albanian I2a is slavic. I wish I could share more.

I-L158

Haplogroup I-L158 (L158, L159.1/S169.1, M26) accounts for approximately 40% of all patrilines among the Sardinians.[8] It is also found at low to moderate frequency among populations of the Pyrenees (9.5% in Bortzerriak, Navarra; 9.7% in Chazetania, Aragon; 8% in Val d'Aran, Catalunya; 2.9% in Alt Urgell, Catalunya; and 8.1% in Baixa Cerdanya, Catalunya) and Iberia, and it has been found in 1.6% of a sample of Albanians living in the Republic of Macedonia[9] and 1.2% (3/257) of a sample of Czechs.[10] The age of YSTR variation for the M26 subclade has been calculated at 8.0±4.0 kya.[2]

Eldritch

30-05-13, 02:13

The stuff about I2a2b is confidential information from another site but here is a starter from wikipedia that not all Albanian I2a is slavic. I wish I could share more.

I-L158

Haplogroup I-L158 (L158, L159.1/S169.1, M26) accounts for approximately 40% of all patrilines among the Sardinians.[8] It is also found at low to moderate frequency among populations of the Pyrenees (9.5% in Bortzerriak, Navarra; 9.7% in Chazetania, Aragon; 8% in Val d'Aran, Catalunya; 2.9% in Alt Urgell, Catalunya; and 8.1% in Baixa Cerdanya, Catalunya) and Iberia, and it has been found in 1.6% of a sample of Albanians living in the Republic of Macedonia[9] and 1.2% (3/257) of a sample of Czechs.[10] The age of YSTR variation for the M26 subclade has been calculated at 8.0±4.0 kya.[2]
Yes that's the Sardinian clade, in fact very weird, especially in the case of Czechs.

albanopolis

30-05-13, 02:32

That's what I thought too for a while, but then I discovered that most of the 15% I2a in southern Albanians is I2a2b, a rare nordic/celtic Hg. So it seems they're not much slavic, but rather a bit "germanic". The devil is in the details...
Kamani! I have noticed that some southern Albanians resemble to some extent the Skots. I mean a tanned Scot. So it could be a strain of blood responsable for it. I don't have any real Dna training to analize the data. I am just trying to make an educated guess through merging the history and an amatorish analysis of DNA data. So, you could be right. The Celtic strain presence in Albanians was noted by british anthropologist of 19th centuary Edith Durham. She published he findings in her book "High Albania".

albanopolis

30-05-13, 02:50

99% sure, but we need a published study for proof. The few published studies for south-albania are decieving because they say only I2a without going into subclades. I started looking at online maps of people who have shared their Haplogroup, and there is a strong I2a2b area between south-Albania/Macedonia/Northern Greece.
You know, it just came to my mind, Coon started to make sense too. He said that Dinarics are a hybrid of mediterranians and Celts. And y-dna is showing just that. Albanian Dinarics are E,J, mediterranian with I, R1b northern. Before Dna came to life I hated Coon. I thought we are a different European race. Obviusly he merits his PhD.

adamo

30-05-13, 04:02

The Sardinian I Clade probably moved from the Balkans to Central Europe (near Czech Republic) and then to Iberia later to Sardinia, that's my hypothesis anyways.

Shetop

30-05-13, 12:13

That's what I thought too for a while, but then I discovered that most of the 15% I2a in southern Albanians is I2a2b, a rare nordic/celtic Hg. So it seems they're not much slavic, but rather a bit "germanic". The devil is in the details...

This is very wrong.
Big majority of Albanian I2a is the same one as in Macedonia, Greece, Bulgaria, Serbia.
And I belong to those which would call it the Slavic I2a.

ukaj

04-06-13, 12:12

bosna you are all over youtube spreading this rubbish,,you are not illyrian,you slavnic,the reason why the high population of you genetics thats no older than 2200bc is because the slavnic people came in huge wave to bosnia and herzgovinia.so its easy to take over a small population with slavnic genetics witch their was small tribes their,,igenea is not a good sample of creating a people,tell me how in hell did igenea a private own copany get hold of phenesians,illyrians,ancient greek,thracian,dacian etc how when not even oxford uni has?wake up to yourself.my tribe comes from herzgovinia highlands many many years ago an we have a totally difrent dna to you if its true we supposed to have ev-13 at 45.6 percent an thats kosova albanians whom also coem from hoti tribe of herzgoviniua,huge ammount of slavs invaded the small population of dalmatia coast an inland,,your genetics is a genetic drift from old i2 it again is no older than 2200bc your dna i2a2,is from i2a,i2b etc have you no read the genetic chart?i2a2 is not old..lol.

kamani

04-06-13, 16:12

That's what I thought too for a while, but then I discovered that most of the 15% I2a in southern Albanians is I2a2b, a rare nordic/celtic Hg. So it seems they're not much slavic, but rather a bit "germanic". The devil is in the details...

And here is some independent support for my theory. I happened to step-on it recently from: "Linking Italy and the Balkans. A Y-chromosome perspective from the Arbereshe of Calabria."

I-M170 is the most common Balkan haplogroup (Pericic et al. 2005a,b) and the second most frequent Arbereshe clade. Nevertheless, analysis of its network reveals unexpected results: most of the Arbereshe I-M170 haplotypes are not included in the Balkan cluster (Figure 3), but are located in the long branches containing mainly Italian chromosomes. Comparisons with literature data (Semino et al. 2000; Barac et al. 2003, Rootsi et al. 2004) show that the core haplotype of the Balkan cluster (16-14-15-13-31-24-11-11-13; locus order as above) is consistent with the almost Balkan exclusive I2a (formerly I1b) clade. The proposed interpretation of the Arbereshe as a proxy of the founder Albanian population leads us to hypothesize that the I2a clade was less common in the southern Balkans 500 years ago than nowadays. The very tight shape of the I2a cluster in the network suggests a very recent expansion of this haplogroup in the southern Balkans. Furthermore, I2a is still rare in

mountain populations such as the Albanians of Kosovo (Pericic et al. 2005a,b) and in a randomly selected Arbereshe sample from Rootsi et al. (2004).

The Arberesh are from South-Albania and the different I2a they're talking about is the celtic/Illyrian I2a2b. Arberesh have 23% I2a2b, probably the highest percentage in the world. That's very celtic/germanic to me.

Eldritch

04-06-13, 17:32

I see nothing Celtic/Germanic in their DYS values.

Templar

04-06-13, 17:39

you are not illyrian,you slavnic,the reason why the high population of you genetics thats no older than 2200bc

You talk about Slavs as if they are a single monolithic sub-race. Souths Slavs have far more I2 than other Slavs which reflects a different origin. South Slavs are also taller, darker, look "Dinaric", etc. Slavs are a cultural-linguistic cluster, and not a genetic one.

kamani

04-06-13, 19:14

I see nothing Celtic/Germanic in their DYS values.
where do you see the Arberesh DYS values? Above is only numbers for the balkan cluster.

ukaj

07-06-13, 01:20

You talk about Slavs as if they are a single monolithic sub-race. Souths Slavs have far more I2 than other Slavs which reflects a different origin. South Slavs are also taller, darker, look "Dinaric", etc. Slavs are a cultural-linguistic cluster, and not a genetic one.
hey dont get e wrong the only record of south slavs are from 6thctry,,im 6ft, an catholic albanian,hey dont get me wrong their is illyrian in slavs,etc serbians as much as i hate it theyhave high percent of ev-13 at 27%,now im not saying im illyrian but it makes alot more sence,slavs midrated from behind carpathian mountains an to north,,my belives is bosnians of today may have been illyrians but not as much anymore because of the massive wave of slavnic migration,,at one point bosnians and albanians were very much related,,12 of bosnia is a not old it stems from the old i2a,i2b its a genetic drift like albanians of ev-13,ev is much older than i,,,

Templar

07-06-13, 10:37

hey dont get e wrong the only record of south slavs are from 6thctry,,im 6ft, an catholic albanian,hey dont get me wrong their is illyrian in slavs,etc serbians as much as i hate it theyhave high percent of ev-13 at 27%,now im not saying im illyrian but it makes alot more sence,slavs midrated from behind carpathian mountains an to north,,my belives is bosnians of today may have been illyrians but not as much anymore because of the massive wave of slavnic migration,,at one point bosnians and albanians were very much related,,12 of bosnia is a not old it stems from the old i2a,i2b its a genetic drift like albanians of ev-13,ev is much older than i,,,

So you are basically saying that South Slavs are the same as other Slavs, except for some minor admixture with the local population. And the different ratio of I2 to R1a is just genetic drift? I don't know, other Slavs look way different than us. Way more round-headed, shorter, less hairy, less aggressive (from my person experience), etc.

If I2 did come with the Slavic migrations my guess would be that on their way to the West Balkans, they mixed with a I2 heavy population that was probably located where the old Cucuteni-Trypillian culture used to be. That would explain the tallness, hairiness, among other European Paleolithic traits. So then in the end, South Slavs would be a mix of Northern Slavs, East Balkan people, and West balkan people. With ancestry from the neolithic farmers, Indo-Europeans, and the paleolithic hunter-gatherers.

EDIT: btw I am not the only one to propose this theory. Some other forum members deserve credit for it.

zanipolo

07-06-13, 10:55

So you are basically saying that South Slavs are the same as other Slavs, except for some minor admixture with the local population. And the different ratio of I2 to R1a is just genetic drift? I don't know, other Slavs look way different than us. Way more round-headed, shorter, less hairy, less aggressive (from my person experience), etc.

If I2 did come with the Slavic migrations my guess would be that on their way to the West Balkans, they mixed with a I2 heavy population that was probably located where the old Cucuteni-Trypillian culture used to be. That would explain the tallness, hairiness, among other European Paleolithic traits. So then in the end, South Slavs would be a mix of Northern Slavs, East Balkan people, and West balkan people. With ancestry from the neolithic farmers, Indo-Europeans, and the paleolithic hunter-gatherers.

EDIT: btw I am not the only one to propose this theory. Some other forum members deserve credit for it.

we do realise that the term Illyrian reflected the same terminology as british or iberian, that is, many tribes, many kings, many haplotypes and not all the same customs, cultures etc. ........it was a geographical term for a people.

there was 9 major tribes/confederation and 4 FTS types

Templar

07-06-13, 14:38

we do realise that the term Illyrian reflected the same terminology as british or iberian, that is, many tribes, many kings, many haplotypes and not all the same customs, cultures etc. ........it was a geographical term for a people.

there was 9 major tribes/confederation and 4 FTS types

I never used the word "Illyrian" in my post.

EDIT: ah sorry, I thought u wrote "you do realize" at the beginning instead of "we do realize"

ukaj

09-06-13, 16:29

So you are basically saying that South Slavs are the same as other Slavs, except for some minor admixture with the local population. And the different ratio of I2 to R1a is just genetic drift? I don't know, other Slavs look way different than us. Way more round-headed, shorter, less hairy, less aggressive (from my person experience), etc.

If I2 did come with the Slavic migrations my guess would be that on their way to the West Balkans, they mixed with a I2 heavy population that was probably located where the old Cucuteni-Trypillian culture used to be. That would explain the tallness, hairiness, among other European Paleolithic traits. So then in the end, South Slavs would be a mix of Northern Slavs, East Balkan people, and West balkan people. With ancestry from the neolithic farmers, Indo-Europeans, and the paleolithic hunter-gatherers.

EDIT: btw I am not the only one to propose this theory. Some other forum members deserve credit for it.Ok think about this for me,,if my tribe came from herzgovinia highands an i speak gheg albanian an have alsways,then how come we have ev-13 an use have i2?if the ppulation of bosnia and croatia were always slavs then where is the people whom once lived their.since the genetics in bosnia and herzgovinia are so high then where did the old people of balkans go You cant preserve blood an not language that just doesnt work,when i see a herzgovinian i see albanian this is what is see, not all but some,,im hairy im tall an so are most northern albanians,,My cusin is a historian works in athens alot,he told me slavs migrated from behind carpathian mountains,,the genetics of balkans just doesnt make sense because the migration of others to balkans unless use all lived in tribes an shifted from the slav migration but i dont think that happen,,

ukaj

09-06-13, 16:58

we do realise that the term Illyrian reflected the same terminology as british or iberian, that is, many tribes, many kings, many haplotypes and not all the same customs, cultures etc. ........it was a geographical term for a people.

there was 9 major tribes/confederation and 4 FTS types
TE=Templar;409659]So you are basically saying that South Slavs are the same as other Slavs, except for some minor admixture with the local population. And the different ratio of I2 to R1a is just genetic drift? I don't know, other Slavs look way different than us. Way more round-headed, shorter, less hairy, less aggressive (from my person experience), etc.

If I2 did come with the Slavic migrations my guess would be that on their way to the West Balkans, they mixed with a I2 heavy population that was probably located where the old Cucuteni-Trypillian culture used to be. That would explain the tallness, hairiness, among other European Paleolithic traits. So then in the end, South Slavs would be a mix of Northern Slavs, East Balkan people, and West balkan people. With ancestry from the neolithic farmers, Indo-Europeans, and the paleolithic hunter-gatherers.

Lower Austria (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lower_Austria) and Vienna (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vienna), the northern parts on the Morava (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morava_(river)) (March) and Thaya (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thaya) Rivers are part of the Czech Republic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czech_Republic) and Slovakia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slovakia) this is the birth of slavs.. Czech historian Safarik, All-Slavic Conference, Prague (Curta 2001,By about 1500 BC, the area of land which now corresponds with south-eastern Poland and north-eastern Ukraine became home of the early Slavic tribes, which are commonly known as the Proto-Slavs. Studies and excavations of this area of land, that could be called the 'Slavic Cradle', prove that the present day Slavs are the descendants of these tribes. The Proto-Slavic tribes dwelt in their homeland for many centuries, speaking one common language; which in time would produce the modern Slavic languages of today as well as extinct languages. taking into account the history of the various other peoples of Europe, based on historical evidence and observation, I believe that the physical appearance of Slavic peoples are generally discernible from non-Slavic peoples. For me there is a general 'Slavic look' as Slavs do share certain physical characteristics that are more common amongst Slavs more so than non-Slavs. For example if you were to place Slavic persons of any nation in a room full of non-Slavic European persons, you would have quite a good idea who was a Slav or non-Slav.The word 'Slav' or 'Slowianin' derives from the Slavic term for word; 'Slowo'. Thus, to the Slavs their name testified to their mastery over spoken words. It could be put as 'the ones we understand'. The Slavs called themselves 'Slovjeni' or 'Slaveni' do to the fact that their people 'understood' one another. Their neighbours to the west, in particular the Germans who spoke a different tongue, were not understood, and thus the Slavs came to call them 'Nijemcima' meaning mutes, dumb, speechless and silent. It could be put as 'the ones we do not understand'. The name has stood the test of time; Germans are still called 'Niemci' today by the Slavic peoples.One way of determining where the original homeland of the Slavs is to undertake linguistic palaeontology. Polish botanist J. Rostafinski for example, pushed linguistic evidence even further. He argued that the original homeland of the Slavs was devoid of beech, larch and yew trees, because in all Slavic languages, the words for those trees are all foreign loan words of Germanic origin. On the basis of distribution of those trees, Rostafinski was able to locate the ancestral homeland of the Slavs in the marshes along the Pripet River in Polesie, generally in the south-eastern Poland and north-eastern Ukraine area, as this area was devoid of such trees. Polish historian Jan Peisker, elaborated this view stating "the Slav was the son and product of the marsh" (Curta 2001, p. 8).

ukaj

09-06-13, 17:08

TE=Templar;409659]So you are basically saying that South Slavs are the same as other Slavs, except for some minor admixture with the local population. And the different ratio of I2 to R1a is just genetic drift? I don't know, other Slavs look way different than us. Way more round-headed, shorter, less hairy, less aggressive (from my person experience), etc.

If I2 did come with the Slavic migrations my guess would be that on their way to the West Balkans, they mixed with a I2 heavy population that was probably located where the old Cucuteni-Trypillian culture used to be. That would explain the tallness, hairiness, among other European Paleolithic traits. So then in the end, South Slavs would be a mix of Northern Slavs, East Balkan people, and West balkan people. With ancestry from the neolithic farmers, Indo-Europeans, and the paleolithic hunter-gatherers.

Lower Austria (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lower_Austria) and Vienna (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vienna), the northern parts on the Morava (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morava_(river)) (March) and Thaya (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thaya) Rivers are part of the Czech Republic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czech_Republic) and Slovakia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slovakia) this is the birth of slavs.. Czech historian Safarik, All-Slavic Conference, Prague (Curta 2001,By about 1500 BC, the area of land which now corresponds with south-eastern Poland and north-eastern Ukraine became home of the early Slavic tribes, which are commonly known as the Proto-Slavs. Studies and excavations of this area of land, that could be called the 'Slavic Cradle', prove that the present day Slavs are the descendants of these tribes. The Proto-Slavic tribes dwelt in their homeland for many centuries, speaking one common language; which in time would produce the modern Slavic languages of today as well as extinct languages. taking into account the history of the various other peoples of Europe, based on historical evidence and observation, I believe that the physical appearance of Slavic peoples are generally discernible from non-Slavic peoples. For me there is a general 'Slavic look' as Slavs do share certain physical characteristics that are more common amongst Slavs more so than non-Slavs. For example if you were to place Slavic persons of any nation in a room full of non-Slavic European persons, you would have quite a good idea who was a Slav or non-Slav.The word 'Slav' or 'Slowianin' derives from the Slavic term for word; 'Slowo'. Thus, to the Slavs their name testified to their mastery over spoken words. It could be put as 'the ones we understand'. The Slavs called themselves 'Slovjeni' or 'Slaveni' do to the fact that their people 'understood' one another. Their neighbours to the west, in particular the Germans who spoke a different tongue, were not understood, and thus the Slavs came to call them 'Nijemcima' meaning mutes, dumb, speechless and silent. It could be put as 'the ones we do not understand'. The name has stood the test of time; Germans are still called 'Niemci' today by the Slavic peoples.One way of determining where the original homeland of the Slavs is to undertake linguistic palaeontology. Polish botanist J. Rostafinski for example, pushed linguistic evidence even further. He argued that the original homeland of the Slavs was devoid of beech, larch and yew trees, because in all Slavic languages, the words for those trees are all foreign loan words of Germanic origin. On the basis of distribution of those trees, Rostafinski was able to locate the ancestral homeland of the Slavs in the marshes along the Pripet River in Polesie, generally in the south-eastern Poland and north-eastern Ukraine area, as this area was devoid of such trees. Polish historian Jan Peisker, elaborated this view stating "the Slav was the son and product of the marsh" (Curta 2001, p. 8).The early Slavs who came south, had the skills needed to make these bronze plaques (pictured to the left) in the 6th and 5th centuries BC. Over the centuries however they merged with the native population and slowly lost their own identity, taking on the cultural characteristics of neighbouring peoples, such as the alphabet which they probably learned from the Estruscans. Because of this process of evolution, the Venedi grew increasingly differentiated from their north-eastern cousins, who also in their turn refined their skills in working materials, casting objects in metal for instance (1984, Quilici).The Great Slavic Mass-Migrations

In the 1st century (0-100 AD), the early Slavs were still situated around the 'Slavic Cradle', which now had expanded encompassing the Baltic to the Carpathians, as a result of the smaller, initial migrations from the Pripet Marshes. The Slavic word for glory; 'Slava' is originally a reference to the great and proud ancestral homeland. Indeed epic stories of the great mass-migration away from the Slavic cradle are embedded in the history and cultural heritage of the Slavs.this is not all,,if slavs were illyrians or bosnians etc then they would not speak cyrillic they would be speaking latin or latin influence,the illyrians of that area were latinised around the time of slavnic migration

ukaj

09-06-13, 17:16

The early Slavs who came south, had the skills needed to make these bronze plaques (pictured to the left) in the 6th and 5th centuries BC. Over the centuries however they merged with the native population and slowly lost their own identity, taking on the cultural characteristics of neighbouring peoples, such as the alphabet which they probably learned from the Estruscans. Because of this process of evolution, the Venedi grew increasingly differentiated from their north-eastern cousins, who also in their turn refined their skills in working materials, casting objects in metal for instance (1984, Quilici).The Great Slavic Mass-Migrations

In the 1st century (0-100 AD), the early Slavs were still situated around the 'Slavic Cradle', which now had expanded encompassing the Baltic to the Carpathians, as a result of the smaller, initial migrations from the Pripet Marshes. The Slavic word for glory; 'Slava' is originally a reference to the great and proud ancestral homeland. Indeed epic stories of the great mass-migration away from the Slavic cradle are embedded in the history and cultural heritage of the Slavs.this is not all,,if slavs were illyrians or bosnians etc then they would not speak cyrillic they would be speaking latin or latin influence,the illyrians of that area were latinised around the time of slavnic migration Firstly, the migration was to the west, peacefully and quietly, tribe after tribe, occupying districts and regions the Germanic tribes (e.g. Vandals, Visigoths & Ostrogoths) deserted in order to attack the Roman Empire. The waves of nomadic barbarians, originating from central Asia such as the Huns, who arrived in 370 AD, then pushed the Slavs in all directions following their advance. As the Hun empire fell in 453 AD, there was a rush of Slavic migration to the south towards the Black Sea and the mouth of the river Danube. Slavic warbands and groups broke through many defences with weapons in hand, throughout the lower Danube in the outer regions of the Byzantine Empire reaching the Balkans. The first known recording of this Slavic mass migration was in the year 493 AD.In the 6th century, during the closing stages of the mass-migrations the Goth historian Jordanes and eyewitness wrote: "The Slavs are of one blood and live in three groups. The Venedic (West Slavs), Antic (East Slavs), and Sklavinian (South Slavs)" (2000, Pogonowski, p.19)."These are three great tribes of the same people."bare in mind Sklavinian is present scandavania.this is what a slovak histroian says The only Slavs that stayed put during the great mass-migrations are the Slovaks. This is the reason why they were, and indeed still are, situated almost in the centre of the Slavic cradle. Evidence of this fact can be seen in folkloristic studies. The Slovaks have no stories in their culture of their people shifting out of the ancestral homeland, unlike the Poles, Czechs and Croats etc. that have stories of such epic events.One example is Lech, Czech & Rus, which signifies the Slavic peoples migration away from the ancestral homeland. I must say don't dismiss legends as they can always be put in historical context, a certain chronological order in time and contain much factual information. Where not our Slavic forefathers trying to tell us something though the tales of migration they left behind for us? Also, it is said that one who speaks Slovakian, has the easiest time understanding the rest of the Slavic languages, as they are in the middle of the Slavic sea; one of the biggest 'human ethnographic seas', on the face of this earth.Evidence of the South Slavs, in particular the Croats migrating from the ancestral home in Poland to Dalmatia is also recorded in folk narratives, and also in historical fact. The folk narrative describes five Slavic brothers and two sisters that lead the Croats from the area around Kraków in Poland into the Balkans in the 7th century. Are these epic tales of heroic migrations a coincidence? Not according to historical fact. It is interesting to note that it is historical fact that the first kingdom of Croatia, White Croatia, was not situated in Dalmatia but in Poland, Bohemia and Slovakia with its capital being Kraków. Indeed White Croatian figures played a pivotal role in early history of the Polish and Bohemian kingdoms. Even the first canonised patron saint of Poland, St. Wojciech; 'Wojciech of the Slavs' was a White Croatian.3.0 Selected Bibliography & ReferencesBarraclough, G. (ed) 1982, The Times Concise Atlas of World History, Angus & Robertson Publishers, London.

Curta, F. 2001, The Making of the Slavs: History and Archaeology of the Lower Danube Region c. 500 - 700, Cambridge Univerity Press, Cambridge.

Ok think about this for me,,if my tribe came from herzgovinia highands an i speak gheg albanian an have alsways,then how come we have ev-13 an use have i2?if the ppulation of bosnia and croatia were always slavs then where is the people whom once lived their.since the genetics in bosnia and herzgovinia are so high then where did the old people of balkans go You cant preserve blood an not language that just doesnt work,when i see a herzgovinian i see albanian this is what is see, not all but some,,im hairy im tall an so are most northern albanians,,My cusin is a historian works in athens alot,he told me slavs migrated from behind carpathian mountains,,the genetics of balkans just doesnt make sense because the migration of others to balkans unless use all lived in tribes an shifted from the slav migration but i dont think that happen,,

None of the history excerpts that you pasted have anything to do with this. Your are saying that people in Herzegovina look the closest to Ghegs, but then how come people in Herzegovina have the highest rates of I2? The vast majority of Slavs in the world are R1a (ethnic Russians of which there are over 133 million in the world, ethnic Poles of which there are over 60 million in the world, etc), it is only a tiny fraction of Southern Slavs which are mostly I2: people in Dalmatia (population of around 900,000), Herzegovina (population of around 400,000), and mountainous parts of Bosnia (less than 3 million). Notice how the most isolated and mountainous parts are the ones with the highest rates of I2. The flat-lands to the North which were the most exposed to conquest are mostly R1a and R1B.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7b/R1A_map.jpg

LeBrok

09-06-13, 19:03

Not according to historical fact. It is interesting to note that it is historical fact that the first kingdom of Croatia, White Croatia, was not situated in Dalmatia but in Poland, Bohemia and Slovakia with its capital being Kraków. Indeed White Croatian figures played a pivotal role in early history of the Polish and Bohemian kingdoms. Even the first canonised patron saint of Poland, St. Wojciech; 'Wojciech of the Slavs' was a White Croatian.3.0 Selected Bibliography & References
.
There was never ever Croatian kingdom with capital in Krakow (Cracow). You will never find White Croatia on maps pre 19th century, before Poland was divided between Russia, Prussia and Austro-Hungarians. White Croats designation was coined by Austro-Hungarian Empire for their occupied region of Krakow. It was their justification for occupation, as White Croatia (historians were not clear where it was) was part of old Hungarian kingdom.
All this mess happened during 19th century and sadly it continues till today.

zanipolo

09-06-13, 21:06

TE=Templar;409659]So you are basically saying that South Slavs are the same as other Slavs, except for some minor admixture with the local population. And the different ratio of I2 to R1a is just genetic drift? I don't know, other Slavs look way different than us. Way more round-headed, shorter, less hairy, less aggressive (from my person experience), etc.

If I2 did come with the Slavic migrations my guess would be that on their way to the West Balkans, they mixed with a I2 heavy population that was probably located where the old Cucuteni-Trypillian culture used to be. That would explain the tallness, hairiness, among other European Paleolithic traits. So then in the end, South Slavs would be a mix of Northern Slavs, East Balkan people, and West balkan people. With ancestry from the neolithic farmers, Indo-Europeans, and the paleolithic hunter-gatherers.

Lower Austria (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lower_Austria) and Vienna (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vienna), the northern parts on the Morava (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morava_(river)) (March) and Thaya (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thaya) Rivers are part of the Czech Republic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czech_Republic) and Slovakia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slovakia) this is the birth of slavs.. Czech historian Safarik, All-Slavic Conference, Prague (Curta 2001,By about 1500 BC, the area of land which now corresponds with south-eastern Poland and north-eastern Ukraine became home of the early Slavic tribes, which are commonly known as the Proto-Slavs. Studies and excavations of this area of land, that could be called the 'Slavic Cradle', prove that the present day Slavs are the descendants of these tribes. The Proto-Slavic tribes dwelt in their homeland for many centuries, speaking one common language; which in time would produce the modern Slavic languages of today as well as extinct languages. taking into account the history of the various other peoples of Europe, based on historical evidence and observation, I believe that the physical appearance of Slavic peoples are generally discernible from non-Slavic peoples. For me there is a general 'Slavic look' as Slavs do share certain physical characteristics that are more common amongst Slavs more so than non-Slavs. For example if you were to place Slavic persons of any nation in a room full of non-Slavic European persons, you would have quite a good idea who was a Slav or non-Slav.The word 'Slav' or 'Slowianin' derives from the Slavic term for word; 'Slowo'. Thus, to the Slavs their name testified to their mastery over spoken words. It could be put as 'the ones we understand'. The Slavs called themselves 'Slovjeni' or 'Slaveni' do to the fact that their people 'understood' one another. Their neighbours to the west, in particular the Germans who spoke a different tongue, were not understood, and thus the Slavs came to call them 'Nijemcima' meaning mutes, dumb, speechless and silent. It could be put as 'the ones we do not understand'. The name has stood the test of time; Germans are still called 'Niemci' today by the Slavic peoples.One way of determining where the original homeland of the Slavs is to undertake linguistic palaeontology. Polish botanist J. Rostafinski for example, pushed linguistic evidence even further. He argued that the original homeland of the Slavs was devoid of beech, larch and yew trees, because in all Slavic languages, the words for those trees are all foreign loan words of Germanic origin. On the basis of distribution of those trees, Rostafinski was able to locate the ancestral homeland of the Slavs in the marshes along the Pripet River in Polesie, generally in the south-eastern Poland and north-eastern Ukraine area, as this area was devoid of such trees. Polish historian Jan Peisker, elaborated this view stating "the Slav was the son and product of the marsh" (Curta 2001, p. 8).

:confused2:.........I am not Templar

I agree the birth of the slav is in the pocket of SE poland, slovakia and moldovia. But it does not say that R1a is slavic or I2a is slavic

zanipolo

09-06-13, 21:13

Firstly, the migration was to the west, peacefully and quietly, tribe after tribe, occupying districts and regions the Germanic tribes (e.g. Vandals, Visigoths & Ostrogoths) deserted in order to attack the Roman Empire. The waves of nomadic barbarians, originating from central Asia such as the Huns, who arrived in 370 AD, then pushed the Slavs in all directions following their advance. As the Hun empire fell in 453 AD, there was a rush of Slavic migration to the south towards the Black Sea and the mouth of the river Danube. Slavic warbands and groups broke through many defences with weapons in hand, throughout the lower Danube in the outer regions of the Byzantine Empire reaching the Balkans. The first known recording of this Slavic mass migration was in the year 493 AD.In the 6th century, during the closing stages of the mass-migrations the Goth historian Jordanes and eyewitness wrote: "The Slavs are of one blood and live in three groups. The Venedic (West Slavs), Antic (East Slavs), and Sklavinian (South Slavs)" (2000, Pogonowski, p.19)."These are three great tribes of the same people."bare in mind Sklavinian is present scandavania.this is what a slovak histroian says The only Slavs that stayed put during the great mass-migrations are the Slovaks. This is the reason why they were, and indeed still are, situated almost in the centre of the Slavic cradle. Evidence of this fact can be seen in folkloristic studies. The Slovaks have no stories in their culture of their people shifting out of the ancestral homeland, unlike the Poles, Czechs and Croats etc. that have stories of such epic events.One example is Lech, Czech & Rus, which signifies the Slavic peoples migration away from the ancestral homeland. I must say don't dismiss legends as they can always be put in historical context, a certain chronological order in time and contain much factual information. Where not our Slavic forefathers trying to tell us something though the tales of migration they left behind for us? Also, it is said that one who speaks Slovakian, has the easiest time understanding the rest of the Slavic languages, as they are in the middle of the Slavic sea; one of the biggest 'human ethnographic seas', on the face of this earth.Evidence of the South Slavs, in particular the Croats migrating from the ancestral home in Poland to Dalmatia is also recorded in folk narratives, and also in historical fact. The folk narrative describes five Slavic brothers and two sisters that lead the Croats from the area around Kraków in Poland into the Balkans in the 7th century. Are these epic tales of heroic migrations a coincidence? Not according to historical fact. It is interesting to note that it is historical fact that the first kingdom of Croatia, White Croatia, was not situated in Dalmatia but in Poland, Bohemia and Slovakia with its capital being Kraków. Indeed White Croatian figures played a pivotal role in early history of the Polish and Bohemian kingdoms. Even the first canonised patron saint of Poland, St. Wojciech; 'Wojciech of the Slavs' was a White Croatian.3.0 Selected Bibliography & References

2001, Early History of the Slavs [On-line], Available: http://www.campuslife.utoronto.ca/groups/csa/croatia/history/slavs.html [2001, Aug. 29].

2002, Indo-European Languages [On-line], Available: http://www.geocities.com/indoeurop/atree.html [2002, Apr. 4].
your links and info is old.......... , but latest papers from russian, polish and german people is that the croatians did come from the upper vistula river on the east side between the modern rivers of san and wieprz.
and there are only antes and sklavians that can be associated with some form of ethnic slav.

R1a1a7 is now regarded as one of a few truly slavic marker

ukaj

10-06-13, 03:08

your links and info is old.......... , but latest papers from russian, polish and german people is that the croatians did come from the upper vistula river on the east side between the modern rivers of san and wieprz.
and there are only antes and sklavians that can be associated with some form of ethnic slav.

R1a1a7 is now regarded as one of a few truly slavic markerdo you guys understand the genetic charts.haplogoup has many genetic drifts...go to this link an you will see the genetic drifts of all haplogroup..I2,stems from IJ then IJK,thats very interesting since it can be classified as Mediterranean/Aegean (Di Giacomo, 2004), Greco-Anatolian, Mesopotamian and/or Caucasian and is linked to the earliest indigenous populations of Anatolia and the Aegean. It was carried by Bronze Age immigrants to Europe, and ultimately descends from the Cro-Magnon population (IJ-M429 Y-DNA) within the region spanning eastern Turkey and Persia around 35,000 years ago (Sengupta 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_J-M172#CITEREFSengupta2006)).The highest reported frequency of J-M172 ever was 87.4%, among Ingush (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingush_people) in Malgobek (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malgobek) (Balanovsky 2011 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_J-M172#CITEREFBalanovsky2011)). J-M172 - Associated with Mediterranean, South Caucasian and Fertile Crescent populations, with its peaks at 87.4% in Ingushetia and 72% in Georgia's Kazbegi region (near Mount Kazbek). In the North Caucasus, the largest frequencies are those of Nakh peoples (Chechens (56.7%) and Ingush (88.8%).[26] Other notable values were found among North Caucasian Turkic peoples (Kumyks (25%) and Balkars(24%)[28]). It is notable that according to both Nasidze's study in 2004 and then a later study on Dagestani peoples by Yunusbaev in 2006, J-M172 suddenly collapses as one enters the territory of non-Nakh Northeast Caucasian peoples, dropping to very low values among Dagestani peoples. The overwhelming bulk of Chechen J-M172 is of the subclade J-M67), of which the highest frequencies by far are found among Nakh peoples- Chechens were 55.2% according to the Balanovsky study, while Ingush were 87.4%./In some point the ancestors of Ihaplogroup were J it doesnt matter how old a studie is they all say same thing,,

ukaj

10-06-13, 03:25

None of the history excerpts that you pasted have anything to do with this. Your are saying that people in Herzegovina look the closest to Ghegs, but then how come people in Herzegovina have the highest rates of I2? The vast majority of Slavs in the world are R1a (ethnic Russians of which there are over 133 million in the world, ethnic Poles of which there are over 60 million in the world, etc), it is only a tiny fraction of Southern Slavs which are mostly I2: people in Dalmatia (population of around 900,000), Herzegovina (population of around 400,000), and mountainous parts of Bosnia (less than 3 million). Notice how the most isolated and mountainous parts are the ones with the highest rates of I2. The flat-lands to the North which were the most exposed to conquest are mostly R1a and R1B.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7b/R1A_map.jpgThe genetics of bosnia and herzgovinia are they 100% correct did they test the whole popultion?this goes with albanians also..how come people in Herzegovina have the highest rates of I2?Are they or is it a matter of interest for land,an a race,,I know my tribe comes from herzgovinia we fled from turkish and slav population. herzgovinia was not so populated by slav at 1 point this is reason from albanian migration..,now kosova albanians. the kosova albanians most are from the tribe of hoti also,they fled to kosova to get away from turkish population also but assimulated to islam,now if kosova albanians have the highest genetic of ev-13 then this would mean ev-13 was high in the reigion of herzgovinia at 1 point,,but i just cant see that our genetics of bosnian and albanians to be correct..j halpgroup must have been dominate in that region at one point in time if it were then,if you look at the places where the natives once lived in both our reigions an genetics you will see ev-13 was high an still is,,if bosnians are illyrians then the genetics them would be spread through alot of balkans,,macedonia the reigion their was high population of illyrian tribes also.thracians near their also an epirus,,all these places had illyrian tribes their or near..macedonia high population of ev-13,thessally high population of ev13,illyrian land on albania high population of ev-13.dardania high population of ev13,montenegro high population of ev-13.bosnia high population of I2a,how can this happen,,where did the slav migration go?it was recorded by romans,an greeks,see what i mean,,Im not saying we illyrians an use are not.i stick with what i say genetics of our people i dont belive,,an another thing,if ev-13 entered balkans from asia minor an hit by 3 waves of them,then how can they move so upwards to a high population where the I2a population is an not be assimualted by them or even driven away by them,remember slav migration was huge and a huge ammount of slavs came..

ukaj

10-06-13, 03:27

My guess if true about genetics,,J an E were high in north albania an herzgovinia,maybe J was their an mixed with slavs result genetic drift of I

LeBrok

10-06-13, 04:44

your links and info is old.......... , but latest papers from russian, polish and german people is that the croatians did come from the upper vistula river on the east side between the modern rivers of san and wieprz.
and there are only antes and sklavians that can be associated with some form of ethnic slav.

R1a1a7 is now regarded as one of a few truly slavic marker

To find starting point of Croats' migration I would go a bit more to the east. To the land called Galicia or Halicz. We have to remember that name Croat is an english twist. The real name is Hrvat or Horvat (by other Slavs). In this Halicz place, I mentioned above, the old name for Carpathian Mountains is "Horby". Also in this area there are places like Hrevi, Harvin, Harevice (phonetic spelling). Look for Halicz almost at the bottom of the map, under word Russja.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c4/Poland_under_Jagello.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Poland_under_Jagello.jpg

It also corresponds better with one of centers of I2a1 spots.
http://www.eupedia.com/images/content/Haplogroup_I2a.gif

Other than that it is almost impossible to figure out starting points, the homelands, of separate slavic tribes. The names written in ancient chronicles by Romans, Germans or Greeks don't resemble well with known names of slavic tribes as we known them by 10th century. It is probable that name Horvat was as common as Sloveni in self description of Slavic tribes.

We have to keep in mind that some tribes traveled for centuries to the final destination point. Therefore their location was changing few times during their voyage. Possibly every generation.

zanipolo

10-06-13, 04:55

The genetics of bosnia and herzgovinia are they 100% correct did they test the whole popultion?this goes with albanians also..how come people in Herzegovina have the highest rates of I2?Are they or is it a matter of interest for land,an a race,,I know my tribe comes from herzgovinia we fled from turkish and slav population. herzgovinia was not so populated by slav at 1 point this is reason from albanian migration..,now kosova albanians. the kosova albanians most are from the tribe of hoti also,they fled to kosova to get away from turkish population also but assimulated to islam,now if kosova albanians have the highest genetic of ev-13 then this would mean ev-13 was high in the reigion of herzgovinia at 1 point,,but i just cant see that our genetics of bosnian and albanians to be correct..j halpgroup must have been dominate in that region at one point in time if it were then,if you look at the places where the natives once lived in both our reigions an genetics you will see ev-13 was high an still is,,if bosnians are illyrians then the genetics them would be spread through alot of balkans,,macedonia the reigion their was high population of illyrian tribes also.thracians near their also an epirus,,all these places had illyrian tribes their or near..macedonia high population of ev-13,thessally high population of ev13,illyrian land on albania high population of ev-13.dardania high population of ev13,montenegro high population of ev-13.bosnia high population of I2a,how can this happen,,where did the slav migration go?it was recorded by romans,an greeks,see what i mean,,Im not saying we illyrians an use are not.i stick with what i say genetics of our people i dont belive,,an another thing,if ev-13 entered balkans from asia minor an hit by 3 waves of them,then how can they move so upwards to a high population where the I2a population is an not be assimualted by them or even driven away by them,remember slav migration was huge and a huge ammount of slavs came..

illyrians are not one race, not one genetics, not one customs, not one culture.........they are too big, too many kings.
Its like the Thracians......everyone says dacians, getae, triballi, bessi, moesian, odyseyian are thracians.......but are they the same.........no?

ukaj

10-06-13, 07:34

illyrians are not one race, not one genetics, not one customs, not one culture.........they are too big, too many kings.
Its like the Thracians......everyone says dacians, getae, triballi, bessi, moesian, odyseyian are thracians.......but are they the same.........no?Illyrians would have started with one culture,1 language an few customs,If they didnt then they would have not been a single race to begin with,,what culture does greece have?or slavnic something would have been preserved in their culture to identify themselfs of whom they were?

ukaj

10-06-13, 07:44

To find starting point of Croats' migration I would go a bit more to the east. To the land called Galicia or Halicz. We have to remember that name Croat is an english twist. The real name is Hrvat or Horvat (by other Slavs). In this Halicz place, I mentioned above, the old name for Carpathian Mountains is "Horby". Also in this area there are places like Hrevi, Harvin, Harevice (phonetic spelling). Look for Halicz almost at the bottom of the map, under word Russja.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c4/Poland_under_Jagello.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Poland_under_Jagello.jpg

It also corresponds better with one of centers of I2a1 spots.
http://www.eupedia.com/images/content/Haplogroup_I2a.gif

Other than that it is almost impossible to figure out starting points, the homelands, of separate slavic tribes. The names written in ancient chronicles by Romans, Germans or Greeks don't resemble well with known names of slavic tribes as we known them by 10th century. It is probable that name Horvat was as common as Sloveni in self description of Slavic tribes.

We have to keep in mind that some tribes traveled for centuries to the final destination point. Therefore their location was changing few times during their voyage. Possibly every generation. yes agreed.but i am confused about ev-13 entering balkans from asia minor,i know 3 waves happen it entered greece first then may have travlled upwards to north albania herzgovinia an dardania.,but how can this dna remain strong in a populated area?It cant,it defeats the purpose as of the slavnic migration.their must have been another people their before i2a.unless they lived in tribal structures,,my cusin is a albanian historian whom works with greeks in athens an around the world,,he said to me when we albanians came their were huge men much bigger than us,,he doesnt go into detail much,But he did say their were people hear before us whom were huge in every way